Ten Questions Right Wingers Cannot Answer

[Guest Truth Teller]

Republican “leaders” are trying to argue a plausible case for extending Bush’s tax-giveaways to the rich. These massive monetary gifts were enacted in 2001 but are set to expire at the end of 2010 because they were unfunded and therefore added to the deficit and the national debt. The Republicans had used reconciliation, a maneuver they now condemn when Democrats use it, but because the rules provide that reconciliation can be used only for legislation that does not increase the deficit for more than ten years, they had to write an expiration into law. Democrats opposed giving a huge tax windfall to the rich when everyone knew it was adding to the deficit and the debt but Republicans, for whom the rich are like clients in a game of special interest politics, railroaded them through.

Now the smarmy Mitch McConnell and the charisma- and veracity-challenged John Boehner are trying to pass the expiration of the law off as a tax increase. That is completely dishonest. It’s only a tax increase if you think that giving hundreds of billions of dollars away to the richest people in the country is the natural state of affairs. Republicans used to argue that increasing the deficit and the debt is never a natural state of affairs. Of course, that’s not entirely true – a country can run a manageable debt forever. But the most natural state of affairs is for tax cuts to be granted because the government does not need the revenues. That’s not true when the economy is going from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, which is what happened under Bush. When the country is piling up that much debt, someone is going to have to pay taxes. The only question is: who?

Under Republicans these past thirty years, the national debt has become unmanageable. It threatens our economic welfare on a grand scale. If the Bush tax giveaways to the rich don’t expire this year, the national debt will increase. Every year, Americans pay taxes to service that debt. In fact, your tax dollars for January and February of each year are devoted entirely to servicing the national debt. That should tell you how far out of control it is.

Guess who pays taxes to service that debt? The 98% of Americans who didn’t get the benefit of Bush’s huge tax-giveaway, that’s who. That’s right, not only are the rich getting a huge tax gift . . .

. . . you’re paying for it with more taxes on you and your kids!

And meanwhile, they're not investing in creating jobs here. They're sending their investment money overseas to help the Indians and the Chinese overtake us economically. Because Indian and Chinese labor is cheaper. Under Republicans, your tax dollars are going to fund the expansion of the Indian and Chinese economies. And the Republicans want to do it again!

In other words, you’re paying more taxes so the rich can get richer! And because you’re paying more taxes, you’re getting poorer. You’re not getting anything for it. The rich squirrel their money away. They don’t invest in new jobs. They speculate in the markets.

If you aren’t in the top 2% of income earners and you’re voting Republican anyway, you’re a fool. They’re robbing you blind and now, after bring the economy to the brink of collapse, they want to do it again.

Let’s see some right winger justify this.

[Guest Loki]

Job creation starts and ends in the private sector; sure there are government contracts, but those go to independent businesses. Any job created in the public sector is paid for with tax dollars, exclusively.

Extending the tax cuts will create an atmosphere where these businesses can grow, particularly smaller businesses; which also happen to be the FASTEST growing. If you think the economy is bad now, let them expire and see what happens. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what the President plans to do. You and I better just hold onto our hats . . . . . . . . . and wallets.

BTW, if I need to explain this to you, go to the local university/college/grade school, and they can explain basic economics to you. Remember, John F. Kennedy was a TAX CUTTER.

[Guest Truth Teller]

Job creation starts and ends in the private sector; sure there are government contracts, but those go to independent businesses. Any job created in the public sector is paid for with tax dollars, exclusively.

Extending the tax cuts will create an atmosphere where these businesses can grow, particularly smaller businesses; which also happen to be the FASTEST growing. If you think the economy is bad now, let them expire and see what happens. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what the President plans to do. You and I better just hold onto our hats . . . . . . . . . and wallets.

BTW, if I need to explain this to you, go to the local university/college/grade school, and they can explain basic economics to you. Remember, John F. Kennedy was a TAX CUTTER.

I’ll give you credit for trying to answer the question. The right wing’s lack of ideas is illustrated by the complete failure to attempt to address any of the topics, until now.

However, Loki, your answer is dead wrong. JFK’s tax cuts were nearly 50 years ago, when we had a national economy and American investors invested mainly here in the USA creating American jobs. They’re not doing that any more. Now they’re mainly investing overseas creating jobs in India and China.

How do we know that? Because that’s what they did when Bush pushed through welfare for the rich ten years ago. Did it create jobs here? No. Did it create a healthy economy here? On paper it did, for a while, but only because stocks went up. Long term, it was a disaster. It didn’t create jobs but our trade deficit, budget deficit and national debt all increased, and our long-term economic outlook diminished precipitously. Look, for example, how the trade deficit leveled off under Clinton and then shot through the roof under Bush. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...ved=0CC4Q9QEwBQ

What the right wing wants us to do is return to the Bush policies that drove our economy into the ditch. With the tax-cut welfare program for the rich, it works like this: We give the rich more money. They send it overseas to create jobs in India and China, taking jobs away from American workers, who now have less money to pay in taxes. So the people who are still working will either have to endure more tax increases, or have their taxes go to paying off an ever-rising national debt. And since the tax cuts are from borrowed money, the debt rises even further. And who pays taxes to service the national debt? Here’s who:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http:/...=1t:429,r:2,s:0

So in other words, you want us to

Give more money to the rich

so they can send it overseas

to build the Indian and Chinese economies and employ Indian and Chinese workers,

thereby taking jobs away from Americans,

further damaging a shrinking American middle class

and forcing all Americans to pay more taxes in the long run.

Or, to put it more simply,

you want a welfare program for the Indians and the Chinese and a few rich people at the expense of 98% of Americans.

If the goal is to use tax policy to encourage small business and thereby create jobs for American workers, there are plenty of ways to structure targeted tax cuts to help small businesses who employ Americans. When Democrats try to do that, Republicans squeal like stuck pigs that the Democrats are picking winners and losers. But when Republicans want welfare for the rich, picking winners and losers is fine. The right wing is doing what it always does; its lying to service its super-rich clientele, the people Bush called his base. Surely you’re intelligent enough to figure this out, Loki.

[Guest Loki]

But, if all the jobs are overseas, and I will grant you, that many are, it's not really an indictment on Bush. It would have to go further back, to the Republican Congress and Clinton. NAFTA really kind of greased the skids for the jobs heading out. From there it just snowballed.

Do not think that I am attempting to exonerate Bush, he spent too much, allowed the housing bubble to get worse (although I have to give him full credit for early warnings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, I assure you, if they allow the tax cuts to expire, it will be a death blow to an already anemic economy.

Another problem with regards to the sunset of the tax cuts, is that corporations will "cash out"; i.e. they will take full profits this year when the burden is lower. Then, next year, all of a sudden, these businesses will have a "bad year", post a variety of losses, and the treasury revenues will take a hit.

The trade deficit will be a tricky issue until such time as the Chinese start trading their currency in a legitimate market. They artificially inflate and deflate the currency to suit their needs, and that extends to the trade deficit. Don't think for one minute we could manipulate the dollar like that, or the Euro; these currencies are dealt with in real terms.

Either way, the future, near term, and quite likely long term, doesn't look good. It'll be a rough ride.

[Guest Truth Teller]

But, if all the jobs are overseas, and I will grant you, that many are, it's not really an indictment on Bush. It would have to go further back, to the Republican Congress and Clinton. NAFTA really kind of greased the skids for the jobs heading out. From there it just snowballed.

Do not think that I am attempting to exonerate Bush, he spent too much, allowed the housing bubble to get worse (although I have to give him full credit for early warnings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). But, I assure you, if they allow the tax cuts to expire, it will be a death blow to an already anemic economy.

Another problem with regards to the sunset of the tax cuts, is that corporations will "cash out"; i.e. they will take full profits this year when the burden is lower. Then, next year, all of a sudden, these businesses will have a "bad year", post a variety of losses, and the treasury revenues will take a hit.

The trade deficit will be a tricky issue until such time as the Chinese start trading their currency in a legitimate market. They artificially inflate and deflate the currency to suit their needs, and that extends to the trade deficit. Don't think for one minute we could manipulate the dollar like that, or the Euro; these currencies are dealt with in real terms.

Either way, the future, near term, and quite likely long term, doesn't look good. It'll be a rough ride.

Of the people on the political right who post here, you are among the more thoughtful, so it's disappointing to see you brush aside the facts to retain your conclusion. You don't deny that extending the Bush tax giveaways will result in the American middle class subsidizing economic growth in India and China at the expense of the American people, with the exception of a few rich people who will make a killing. And you don't deny that we will have to borrow the money to give it to the rich so they can send it overseas, or that we will have to pay taxes to service the debt thereby created. But you're hell-bent, apparently, that these tax giveaways are a great idea, even though they haven't worked for the past ten years, on the contrary have created more debt, increased our trade deficit and the national debt and harmed 98% of the people.

Please, if you're politically attuned to the right, that's who you are. But don't ignore the facts. Look within yourself as you consider these issues. Whenever you find that you have to ignore the facts to maintain your opinions, it's time to reevaluate your opinions.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Republican “leaders” are trying to argue a plausible case for extending Bush’s tax-giveaways to the rich. These massive monetary gifts were enacted in 2001 but are set to expire at the end of 2010 because they were unfunded and therefore added to the deficit and the national debt. The Republicans had used reconciliation, a maneuver they now condemn when Democrats use it, but because the rules provide that reconciliation can be used only for legislation that does not increase the deficit for more than ten years, they had to write an expiration into law. Democrats opposed giving a huge tax windfall to the rich when everyone knew it was adding to the deficit and the debt but Republicans, for whom the rich are like clients in a game of special interest politics, railroaded them through.

Now the smarmy Mitch McConnell and the charisma- and veracity-challenged John Boehner are trying to pass the expiration of the law off as a tax increase. That is completely dishonest. It’s only a tax increase if you think that giving hundreds of billions of dollars away to the richest people in the country is the natural state of affairs. Republicans used to argue that increasing the deficit and the debt is never a natural state of affairs. Of course, that’s not entirely true – a country can run a manageable debt forever. But the most natural state of affairs is for tax cuts to be granted because the government does not need the revenues. That’s not true when the economy is going from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, which is what happened under Bush. When the country is piling up that much debt, someone is going to have to pay taxes. The only question is: who?

Under Republicans these past thirty years, the national debt has become unmanageable. It threatens our economic welfare on a grand scale. If the Bush tax giveaways to the rich don’t expire this year, the national debt will increase. Every year, Americans pay taxes to service that debt. In fact, your tax dollars for January and February of each year are devoted entirely to servicing the national debt. That should tell you how far out of control it is.

Guess who pays taxes to service that debt? The 98% of Americans who didn’t get the benefit of Bush’s huge tax-giveaway, that’s who. That’s right, <b>not only are the rich getting a huge tax gift . . .

. . . you’re paying for it with more taxes on you and your kids! </b>

And meanwhile, they're not investing in creating jobs here. They're sending their investment money overseas to help the Indians and the Chinese overtake us economically. Because Indian and Chinese labor is cheaper. <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>Under Republicans, your tax dollars are going to fund the expansion of the Indian and Chinese economies.</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> And the Republicans want to do it again!

In other words, you’re paying more taxes so the rich can get richer! And because you’re paying more taxes, you’re getting poorer. You’re not getting anything for it. The rich squirrel their money away. They don’t invest in new jobs. They speculate in the markets.

If you aren’t in the top 2% of income earners and you’re voting Republican anyway, you’re a fool. They’re robbing you blind and now, after bring the economy to the brink of collapse, they want to do it again.

Let’s see some right winger justify this.

Try this one on for size; Many Dem. senators are now jumping ship and supporting the Bush tax cut extension. Thank God some dems are seeing the lunacy of zerO's policies.

[Guest Truth Teller]

Try this one on for size; Many Dem. senators are now jumping ship and supporting the Bush tax cut extension. Thank God some dems are seeing the lunacy of zerO's policies.

No, they've just been corrupted by the influence of money in politics. We're at a point where entrenched interests are so deeply dug in that it would take a massive popular uprising to uproot them. Instead of that, the biggest and most vocal popular uprising is from tea-partiers whose politics would only hand the fat cats more power.

We are in a peck of trouble. Neither party is offering a solution. The right wing is further from a solution than the left.

An idiot like you treats it like a game. It's not a game. Our future is at stake.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, they've just been corrupted by the influence of money in politics. We're at a point where entrenched interests are so deeply dug in that it would take a massive popular uprising to uproot them. Instead of that, the biggest and most vocal popular uprising is from tea-partiers whose politics would only hand the fat cats more power.

We are in a peck of trouble. Neither party is offering a solution. The right wing is further from a solution than the left.

An idiot like you treats it like a game. It's not a game. Our future is at stake.

"No, they've just been corrupted by the influence of money in politics". That's one of your dumber lines. Of course you have intimate knowledge of what motivates or influences the thoughts and actions of certain dem. senators.

Stick to what you know best, reciting over and over "Bush did it."

[Guest Guest]

"No, they've just been corrupted by the influence of money in politics". That's one of your dumber lines. Of course you have intimate knowledge of what motivates or influences the thoughts and actions of certain dem. senators.

Stick to what you know best, reciting over and over "Bush did it."

So are you saying that money doesn't play too great a role in politics?

[Guest Guest]

<!--quoteo(post=106916:date=Aug 25 2010, 12:21 PM:name=Loki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Loki @ Aug 25 2010, 12:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=106916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Job creation starts and ends in the private sector; sure there are government contracts, but those go to independent businesses. Any job created in the public sector is paid for with tax dollars, exclusively.

Extending the tax cuts will create an atmosphere where these businesses can grow, particularly smaller businesses; which also happen to be the FASTEST growing. If you think the economy is bad now, let them expire and see what happens. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what the President plans to do. You and I better just hold onto our hats . . . . . . . . . and wallets.

BTW, if I need to explain this to you, go to the local university/college/grade school, and they can explain basic economics to you. Remember, John F. Kennedy was a TAX CUTTER.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I’ll give you credit for trying to answer the question. The right wing’s lack of ideas is illustrated by the complete failure to attempt to address any of the topics, until now.

However, Loki, your answer is dead wrong. JFK’s tax cuts were nearly 50 years ago, when we had a national economy and American investors invested mainly here in the USA creating American jobs. They’re not doing that any more. Now they’re mainly investing overseas creating jobs in India and China.

How do we know that? Because that’s what they did when Bush pushed through welfare for the rich ten years ago. Did it create jobs here? No. Did it create a healthy economy here? On paper it did, for a while, but only because stocks went up. Long term, it was a disaster. It didn’t create jobs but our trade deficit, budget deficit and national debt all increased, and our long-term economic outlook diminished precipitously. Look, for example, how the trade deficit leveled off under Clinton and then shot through the roof under Bush. ***

What the right wing wants us to do is return to the Bush policies that drove our economy into the ditch. With the tax-cut welfare program for the rich, it works like this: We give the rich more money. They send it overseas to create jobs in India and China, taking jobs away from American workers, who now have less money to pay in taxes. So the people who are still working will either have to endure more tax increases, or have their taxes go to paying off an ever-rising national debt. And since the tax cuts are from borrowed money, the debt rises even further. And who pays taxes to service the national debt? Here’s who:

***

So in other words, you want us to

<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b> Give more money to the rich

so they can send it overseas

to build the Indian and Chinese economies and employ Indian and Chinese workers,

thereby taking jobs away from Americans,

further damaging a shrinking American middle class

and forcing all Americans to pay more taxes in the long run. </b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

Or, to put it more simply,

<!--coloro:#800080--><span style="color:#800080"><!--/coloro--><b>you want a welfare program for the Indians and the Chinese and a few rich people at the expense of 98% of Americans. </b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->

If the goal is to use tax policy to encourage small business and thereby create jobs for American workers, <b>there are plenty of ways to structure targeted tax cuts to help small businesses who employ Americans</b>. When Democrats try to do that, Republicans squeal like stuck pigs that the Democrats are picking winners and losers. But when Republicans want welfare for the rich, picking winners and losers is fine. The right wing is doing what it always does; its lying to service its super-rich clientele, the people Bush called his base. Surely you’re intelligent enough to figure this out, Loki.

Interesting how Loki didn't answer this at all, he just changed the subject to saying you can't blame it all on Bush.

Edited September 1, 2010 by KOTW
Removed html code to make quote cleaner

[Guest Guest]

Republican “leaders” are trying to argue a plausible case for extending Bush’s tax-giveaways to the rich. These massive monetary gifts were enacted in 2001 but are set to expire at the end of 2010 because they were unfunded and therefore added to the deficit and the national debt. The Republicans had used reconciliation, a maneuver they now condemn when Democrats use it, but because the rules provide that reconciliation can be used only for legislation that does not increase the deficit for more than ten years, they had to write an expiration into law. Democrats opposed giving a huge tax windfall to the rich when everyone knew it was adding to the deficit and the debt but Republicans, for whom the rich are like clients in a game of special interest politics, railroaded them through.

Now the smarmy Mitch McConnell and the charisma- and veracity-challenged John Boehner are trying to pass the expiration of the law off as a tax increase. That is completely dishonest. It’s only a tax increase if you think that giving hundreds of billions of dollars away to the richest people in the country is the natural state of affairs. Republicans used to argue that increasing the deficit and the debt is never a natural state of affairs. Of course, that’s not entirely true – a country can run a manageable debt forever. But the most natural state of affairs is for tax cuts to be granted because the government does not need the revenues. That’s not true when the economy is going from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, which is what happened under Bush. When the country is piling up that much debt, someone is going to have to pay taxes. The only question is: who?

Under Republicans these past thirty years, the national debt has become unmanageable. It threatens our economic welfare on a grand scale. If the Bush tax giveaways to the rich don’t expire this year, the national debt will increase. Every year, Americans pay taxes to service that debt. In fact, your tax dollars for January and February of each year are devoted entirely to servicing the national debt. That should tell you how far out of control it is.

Guess who pays taxes to service that debt? The 98% of Americans who didn’t get the benefit of Bush’s huge tax-giveaway, that’s who. That’s right, <b>not only are the rich getting a huge tax gift . . .

. . . you’re paying for it with more taxes on you and your kids! </b>

And meanwhile, they're not investing in creating jobs here. They're sending their investment money overseas to help the Indians and the Chinese overtake us economically. Because Indian and Chinese labor is cheaper. <!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro--><b>Under Republicans, your tax dollars are going to fund the expansion of the Indian and Chinese economies.</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> And the Republicans want to do it again!

In other words, you’re paying more taxes so the rich can get richer! And because you’re paying more taxes, you’re getting poorer. You’re not getting anything for it. The rich squirrel their money away. They don’t invest in new jobs. They speculate in the markets.

If you aren’t in the top 2% of income earners and you’re voting Republican anyway, you’re a fool. They’re robbing you blind and now, after bring the economy to the brink of collapse, they want to do it again.

Let’s see some right winger justify this.

To say that tax cuts are only for the rich is simply not true. The income tax is highly progressive with a small group of higher income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. The top 1%, incomes over $332,000, paid 28% of all taxes. Almost 50% of household do not pay any tax at all. A tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so; a tax cut won't help them. Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance or is disingenuous. The claim "a tax cut favors the rich" should be "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes."

The Bush tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes, it gave $1,000 child credit and marriage penalty relief. These tax cuts produced record amount of tax revenue. The problem with the deficit is not tax cuts, its spending. With government getting larger by the day, out of control spending and entitlements – you have to feed the beast. The federal government is currently running, and is projected to continue to run unsustainable long-term deficits. The nation cannot afford these deficits, and the economy cannot afford vastly higher taxes, which means it cannot afford to continue spending at current levels. With the economy so perilously close to recession and deflation letting the tax cuts expire are grossly irresponsible. The only solution to the deficit is to drastically cut spending and a strong economic recovery.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf

Don’t you pay enough taxes and how much do you think a person should pay?

What gives you the right to empower government to take someone’s property and give it to someone else?

[Guest Truth Teller]

To say that tax cuts are only for the rich is simply not true. The income tax is highly progressive with a small group of higher income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. The top 1%, incomes over $332,000, paid 28% of all taxes.

No one has said that tax cuts are only for the rich, so you're engaging in a typical right wing ploy of falsely putting words in someone else's mouth.

Even if your statistic is true, taxes still are not progressive in the U.S. The top 1% of earners hold 34% of the wealth, so they should be paying significantly more than 34% of the taxes for the tax to be progressive. And unlike you, I'll back up my statement.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

A tax cut cannot be given to someone who is not paying taxes. The poor do not pay taxes so; a tax cut won't help them.

It's your argument that's disingenuous. You're shifting the ground of the discussion again. The topic isn't about whether you can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes. It's whether the super-rich should have a tax cut extended on borrowed money so they can invest overseas to take more jobs away from Americans, when many of them never really earned the money in the first place. All they did was leverage the system. They didn't add value to the American economy. On the contrary, they bled us dry by sending American jobs overseas and now they're bleeding us dry with the debt we have to pay because they got tax cuts they didn't need.

Saying that "a tax cut favors the rich" is either based on ignorance or is disingenuous. The claim "a tax cut favors the rich" should be "a tax cut favors those that pay taxes."

That argument isn't just disingenuous. It's stupid. The tax cuts the Republicans want to extend would go to people making more than $250,000 per year. Most of the money in those cuts would go to the super-rich, who are making over $1 million per year. That's a tax cut that favors the rich. Trying to dodge the issue by calling it "a tax cut (that) favors those that pay taxes" is like calling it a tax cut that favors those who own yachts and live in mansions. You're just playing with categories to make the same thing sound like something different.

The Bush tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes, it gave $1,000 child credit and marriage penalty relief. These tax cuts produced record amount of tax revenue.

Now there's a disingenuous argument. Tax cuts reduce revenue. Occasionally a tax cut can increase revenue if it boosts the economy but that is not what happened under Bush. The economy went into the tank and the middle class continued to suffer and decline. And once again you're trying to play little games with categories. The Democrats support extending the 2001 tax cuts for 98% of the people, just not for the top 2%, a/k/a the rich. So are you unaware of the distinction or are you lying?

The problem with the deficit is not tax cuts, its spending. With government getting larger by the day, out of control spending and entitlements – you have to feed the beast. The federal government is currently running, and is projected to continue to run unsustainable long-term deficits. The nation cannot afford these deficits, and the economy cannot afford vastly higher taxes, which means it cannot afford to continue spending at current levels.

Your first sentence is classic Republican stupid. The deficit is the result of spending exceeding taxes, so it's plain stupid to say that tax cuts aren't the problem. That's like arguing that the problem with 5 - 3 = 2 is 3, not five.

And we're not talking about vastly higher taxes. We're talking about a 4% tax increase for the rich. They CAN afford it, which is precisely why it should be done. The rich have benefited most from the system. They got tax cuts we couldn't afford. Now it's time for them to pay back in to support the system that made them rich.

As for spending, that's another dishonest tactic - unless you can say specifically what spending you would cut. The Republicans have been asked and they won't say. They'd rather lie, give the rich more tax cuts and drive the deficit even deeper.

With the economy so perilously close to recession and deflation letting the tax cuts expire are grossly irresponsible. The only solution to the deficit is to drastically cut spending and a strong economic recovery.

That would only happen if the rich were investing in America, creating jobs here. They're not doing that. You ignored all the points that were made before. When they got the Bush tax-cut giveaways, they sent borrowed money overseas to help build economies and employ workers in India and China because the labor was cheaper. And we had to pay for it because Bush doubled the national debt. Well, the labor is still cheaper there, so they're going to do exactly the same thing if the tax give-aways are extended. But hey, if you keep killing the middle class, pretty soon our incomes will be lower that than those in China and India, and then our investors will be able to bring jobs back to America - at a reduced wage, of course.

The solution is to rebuild our manufacturing base here in the United States. One of the most promising ways to do that is through green technologies. Infrastructure is another. Because we need research and development of large-scale technologies, government will have to be involved in the beginning. It's called investing. We haven't been investing for the past thirty years. Reagan told us it was all going to be easy. He campaigned on a promise of a balanced budget and then tripled the national debt. People saw that they could still have a good standard of living, so everyone went along, forgetting to notice that we were borrowing against the future. Well, now we have to pay the piper. It's not going to be easy. Somebody is going to have to pay taxes. I say the people who had the biggest parties during the era of irresponsibility should pay some of it back because they never earned it in the first place. All they did was play the game.

What gives you the right to empower government to take someone’s property and give it to someone else?

The sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

As the American economy grew more complex as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the people and their elected officials recognized that an income tax was necessary. The rich didn't make their money on their own. They made it by taking advantage of a system that allowed people to form corporations, use the public roadways, etc. They owe their country a duty to give back to the extent necessary to make it possible for the system to continue to exist: the system that made them rich. You seem to want it both ways: the rich to gain everything from the system but not give anything back. That's not fair and besides, the economy won't survive if we do it that way because the middle class will collapse. And if the middle class collapses, eventually the rich won't make any money either because no one will be able to buy anything and the economy will grind to a halt.

I'm t'rough wit' dis one.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No one has said that tax cuts are only for the rich, so you're engaging in a typical right wing ploy of falsely putting words in someone else's mouth.

Even if your statistic is true, taxes still are not progressive in the U.S. The top 1% of earners hold 34% of the wealth, so they should be paying significantly more than 34% of the taxes for the tax to be progressive. And unlike you, I'll back up my statement.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's your argument that's disingenuous. You're shifting the ground of the discussion again. The topic isn't about whether you can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes. It's whether the super-rich should have a tax cut extended on borrowed money so they can invest overseas to take more jobs away from Americans, when many of them never really earned the money in the first place. All they did was leverage the system. They didn't add value to the American economy. On the contrary, they bled us dry by sending American jobs overseas and now they're bleeding us dry with the debt we have to pay because they got tax cuts they didn't need.

That argument isn't just disingenuous. It's stupid. The tax cuts the Republicans want to extend would go to people making more than $250,000 per year. Most of the money in those cuts would go to the super-rich, who are making over $1 million per year. That's a tax cut that favors the rich. Trying to dodge the issue by calling it "a tax cut (that) favors those that pay taxes" is like calling it a tax cut that favors those who own yachts and live in mansions. You're just playing with categories to make the same thing sound like something different.

Now there's a disingenuous argument. Tax cuts reduce revenue. Occasionally a tax cut can increase revenue if it boosts the economy but that is not what happened under Bush. The economy went into the tank and the middle class continued to suffer and decline. And once again you're trying to play little games with categories. The Democrats support extending the 2001 tax cuts for 98% of the people, just not for the top 2%, a/k/a the rich. So are you unaware of the distinction or are you lying?

Your first sentence is classic Republican stupid. The deficit is the result of spending exceeding taxes, so it's plain stupid to say that tax cuts aren't the problem. That's like arguing that the problem with 5 - 3 = 2 is 3, not five.

And we're not talking about vastly higher taxes. We're talking about a 4% tax increase for the rich. They CAN afford it, which is precisely why it should be done. The rich have benefited most from the system. They got tax cuts we couldn't afford. Now it's time for them to pay back in to support the system that made them rich.

As for spending, that's another dishonest tactic - unless you can say specifically what spending you would cut. The Republicans have been asked and they won't say. They'd rather lie, give the rich more tax cuts and drive the deficit even deeper.

That would only happen if the rich were investing in America, creating jobs here. They're not doing that. You ignored all the points that were made before. When they got the Bush tax-cut giveaways, they sent borrowed money overseas to help build economies and employ workers in India and China because the labor was cheaper. And we had to pay for it because Bush doubled the national debt. Well, the labor is still cheaper there, so they're going to do exactly the same thing if the tax give-aways are extended. But hey, if you keep killing the middle class, pretty soon our incomes will be lower that than those in China and India, and then our investors will be able to bring jobs back to America - at a reduced wage, of course.

The solution is to rebuild our manufacturing base here in the United States. One of the most promising ways to do that is through green technologies. Infrastructure is another. Because we need research and development of large-scale technologies, government will have to be involved in the beginning. It's called investing. We haven't been investing for the past thirty years. Reagan told us it was all going to be easy. He campaigned on a promise of a balanced budget and then tripled the national debt. People saw that they could still have a good standard of living, so everyone went along, forgetting to notice that we were borrowing against the future. Well, now we have to pay the piper. It's not going to be easy. Somebody is going to have to pay taxes. I say the people who had the biggest parties during the era of irresponsibility should pay some of it back because they never earned it in the first place. All they did was play the game.

The sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

As the American economy grew more complex as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the people and their elected officials recognized that an income tax was necessary. The rich didn't make their money on their own. They made it by taking advantage of a system that allowed people to form corporations, use the public roadways, etc. They owe their country a duty to give back to the extent necessary to make it possible for the system to continue to exist: the system that made them rich. You seem to want it both ways: the rich to gain everything from the system but not give anything back. That's not fair and besides, the economy won't survive if we do it that way because the middle class will collapse. And if the middle class collapses, eventually the rich won't make any money either because no one will be able to buy anything and the economy will grind to a halt.

I'm t'rough wit' dis one.

If it wasn't for Huffington and Media Matters you wouldn't be able to speak. Watch the elections coming up in Nov. and see how many people agree with your socialist nonsense.

[Guest Guest]

No one has said that tax cuts are only for the rich, so you're engaging in a typical right wing ploy of falsely putting words in someone else's mouth.

Even if your statistic is true, taxes still are not progressive in the U.S. The top 1% of earners hold 34% of the wealth, so they should be paying significantly more than 34% of the taxes for the tax to be progressive. And unlike you, I'll back up my statement.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's your argument that's disingenuous. You're shifting the ground of the discussion again. The topic isn't about whether you can give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes. It's whether the super-rich should have a tax cut extended on borrowed money so they can invest overseas to take more jobs away from Americans, when many of them never really earned the money in the first place. All they did was leverage the system. They didn't add value to the American economy. On the contrary, they bled us dry by sending American jobs overseas and now they're bleeding us dry with the debt we have to pay because they got tax cuts they didn't need.

That argument isn't just disingenuous. It's stupid. The tax cuts the Republicans want to extend would go to people making more than $250,000 per year. Most of the money in those cuts would go to the super-rich, who are making over $1 million per year. That's a tax cut that favors the rich. Trying to dodge the issue by calling it "a tax cut (that) favors those that pay taxes" is like calling it a tax cut that favors those who own yachts and live in mansions. You're just playing with categories to make the same thing sound like something different.

Now there's a disingenuous argument. Tax cuts reduce revenue. Occasionally a tax cut can increase revenue if it boosts the economy but that is not what happened under Bush. The economy went into the tank and the middle class continued to suffer and decline. And once again you're trying to play little games with categories. The Democrats support extending the 2001 tax cuts for 98% of the people, just not for the top 2%, a/k/a the rich. So are you unaware of the distinction or are you lying?

Your first sentence is classic Republican stupid. The deficit is the result of spending exceeding taxes, so it's plain stupid to say that tax cuts aren't the problem. That's like arguing that the problem with 5 - 3 = 2 is 3, not five.

And we're not talking about vastly higher taxes. We're talking about a 4% tax increase for the rich. They CAN afford it, which is precisely why it should be done. The rich have benefited most from the system. They got tax cuts we couldn't afford. Now it's time for them to pay back in to support the system that made them rich.

As for spending, that's another dishonest tactic - unless you can say specifically what spending you would cut. The Republicans have been asked and they won't say. They'd rather lie, give the rich more tax cuts and drive the deficit even deeper.

That would only happen if the rich were investing in America, creating jobs here. They're not doing that. You ignored all the points that were made before. When they got the Bush tax-cut giveaways, they sent borrowed money overseas to help build economies and employ workers in India and China because the labor was cheaper. And we had to pay for it because Bush doubled the national debt. Well, the labor is still cheaper there, so they're going to do exactly the same thing if the tax give-aways are extended. But hey, if you keep killing the middle class, pretty soon our incomes will be lower that than those in China and India, and then our investors will be able to bring jobs back to America - at a reduced wage, of course.

The solution is to rebuild our manufacturing base here in the United States. One of the most promising ways to do that is through green technologies. Infrastructure is another. Because we need research and development of large-scale technologies, government will have to be involved in the beginning. It's called investing. We haven't been investing for the past thirty years. Reagan told us it was all going to be easy. He campaigned on a promise of a balanced budget and then tripled the national debt. People saw that they could still have a good standard of living, so everyone went along, forgetting to notice that we were borrowing against the future. Well, now we have to pay the piper. It's not going to be easy. Somebody is going to have to pay taxes. I say the people who had the biggest parties during the era of irresponsibility should pay some of it back because they never earned it in the first place. All they did was play the game.

The sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16

As the American economy grew more complex as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the people and their elected officials recognized that an income tax was necessary. The rich didn't make their money on their own. They made it by taking advantage of a system that allowed people to form corporations, use the public roadways, etc. They owe their country a duty to give back to the extent necessary to make it possible for the system to continue to exist: the system that made them rich. You seem to want it both ways: the rich to gain everything from the system but not give anything back. That's not fair and besides, the economy won't survive if we do it that way because the middle class will collapse. And if the middle class collapses, eventually the rich won't make any money either because no one will be able to buy anything and the economy will grind to a halt.

I'm t'rough wit' dis one.

You got to be kidding me. All your replies are left talking points. I cite the CBO and you ask if my statistics are correct and you “back up” your statement by linking to a far left college psychology professor? Did you even read the report? The highest quintile paid 69% of federal taxes. Try backing your statements with legitimate sources.

The fact is tax cuts work, stimulus doesn’t, look up about Japan’s lost decade. They worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. They didn’t work for FDR who raised taxes in 1937 and prolonged the depression. We should learn from the mistakes of the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)

I am not a big fan of Bush but the fact is that he inherited a recession and only 8 months into office suffered a huge economic loss because of 9/11. His tax cuts produced record breaking tax revenue, 51 consecutive months of job growth and unemployment under 5%.

I agree, we should keep as many jobs as we can here and not lose them overseas, but what drives jobs overseas? Wages and taxes, we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Lower that tax rate would help keep jobs here. If investing in green technologies to create jobs is such a great idea, then maybe Obama should spend the stimulus money here.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/stimulus-money-overseas_n_483593.html

The 16th amendment gives the right to levy taxes, not to spread the wealth. You seem to think that the wealthy owe you something for their success. The rich do give back, you just think it’s not enough. How much is enough? Do you hate wealth creation? Years ago I took a risk, quit my job and started my own business. I worked hard, was successful and hired employees. What do I owe you and how did I game the system? You say the rich didn’t make their money on their own, then how did they get it? The way you responded and you can’t answer how much tax is enough leads me to one conclusion, you are a Marxist.

This discussion is going nowhere, you can’t reason with an ideologue.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs~Karl Marx

[Guest Guest]

If it wasn't for Huffington and Media Matters you wouldn't be able to speak. Watch the elections coming up in Nov. and see how many people agree with your socialist nonsense.

In other words, you don't have anything to say and you don't even understand what Truth Teller was saying. So you write a couple of lines of nothing and call it good. You're an idiot.

No, sincerely, you're an idiot.

[Guest Truth Teller]

Loki tried to answer this question, arguing that tax cuts spur investment and job creation, but he ignores the fact that tax cuts for the rich mainly result in investment overseas. So in effect a tax cut for the rich has the middle class subsidizing economic growth in China. In other words, we are forced to pay taxes to help China overtake us and take our jobs away. Loki’s only response was to discuss what role Bush did or didn’t have in it. That does not answer the question or advance the argument. So Loki’s answer is completely inadequate.

2stupid4words then pointed out that some Democrats are now supporting an extension of Bush’s tax giveaway. That does not answer the question: how can you justify the extension?

Then someone tried to argue that the extension wouldn’t benefit only the rich. That doesn’t answer the question either. How do you justify the extension for the top two percent?

Then that same person asked: “Don’t you pay enough taxes?” Yes, I do. That’s one reason why I want to rich to pay their fair share, not get a tax giveaway so they can invest overseas, further weakening our economy here in the United States, and making it so that I have to pay even more taxes to service the debt.

Then someone tried to argue that Bush’s policies were good for the economy. Oh, brother.