I'm not disputing any of the numbers that you conservatives here have given us. What has me baffled is how the average conservative voter still believes that "trickle down" economics actually works. I'm of the belief that if you completely eliminated taxes on the top 1 or 2% nothing would change. No additional jobs would be created and none of this money would find its way down to the lower classes. The thought that protecting the super wealthy somehow will translate into a better tomorrow for all is a myth, plain and simple. The marketing brains in the Republican Party have done a hell of a job in perpetuating this myth and a whole generation of lower and middle class conservatives have swallowed this lie hook, line and sinker.

stlouiedipalma;906803 wrote:I'm not disputing any of the numbers that you conservatives here have given us. What has me baffled is how the average conservative voter still believes that "trickle down" economics actually works. I'm of the belief that if you completely eliminated taxes on the top 1 or 2% nothing would change. No additional jobs would be created and none of this money would find its way down to the lower classes. The thought that protecting the super wealthy somehow will translate into a better tomorrow for all is a myth, plain and simple. The marketing brains in the Republican Party have done a hell of a job in perpetuating this myth and a whole generation of lower and middle class conservatives have swallowed this lie hook, line and sinker.

I'm not totally against this point, but if I may...

If you started a business, and it took off, do you think you could keep up with the demands if it got too out of hand? Or would you hire someone? As the business grew new demands would have to be met, maybe an additional person could be hired??? You just hired two people with the profits from a good that people wanted!

What if we taxed all of your profits away? How much would your job grow? How many would you hire then?

If I'm reading you right, you are saying in that first example, the business owner - rather than hiring someone - would hoard the profits, in spite of the rigors of the demands, correct?

Again, I'm not arguing, just trying to understand if I have what you are saying right.

It is morally reprehensible for government to confiscate more than 1/3 of a person's productive labor. When you combine the top marginal rates at the federal, state and local levels, many are now taxed at over 50% of their earnings! That, my friends, is criminal.

For obama and buffet and all the other socialists and marxists to continue to sound the mantra that the rich don't pay their fair share is a disgrace, morally and ethically. They can all go pound salt.

QuakerOats;906872 wrote:I... They can all go pound salt.

Winter is right around the corner!!!

"Render Caesar what is due him."

I don't know about morally, but certain against what our nation was founded on. Which brings up an interesting point, and my pastor has mused about it a few times, did our forefathers have biblical grounds - or were they justified - in revolting and fighting for their independence from English rule?

Anywho, QuakerOats, I don't like the thought that all money is the governments either.

believer;905806 wrote:Yes it did. To say I'm shocked that a MSM outlet would call the Bammer out on something like this tells me that the Anointed One is in some serious, serious trouble. The 2012 campaign is the Republican candidate's race to lose.

and lose it what they will do

cruiser_96;906841 wrote:
What if we taxed all of your profits away? How much would your job grow?

do you mean like GE who paid there CEO 15.2 million and paid 0 taxes but got a 3.2 billion tax refund or maybe like verizon that paid 0 in taxes and recieved a 705 million tax refund while paying there CEO 18.1 million.prudential taxes paid 0 tax refund 722 million CEO 16.2 million.

KnightRyder;906980 wrote:do you mean like GE who paid there CEO 15.2 million and paid 0 taxes but got a 3.2 billion tax refund or maybe like verizon that paid 0 in taxes and recieved a 705 million tax refund while paying there CEO 18.1 million.prudential taxes paid 0 tax refund 722 million CEO 16.2 million.

Unfortunately, each and every instance is perfectly legal according to our tax code.

THAT is what needs to be overhauled...and BHO will not speak of it.

wkfan;906983 wrote:Unfortunately, each and every instance is perfectly legal according to our tax code.

THAT is what needs to be overhauled...and BHO will not speak of it.

This is the root cause of the class warfare, currently perpetrated by Mr. Buffet. He, along with every other major corporation, hire tens of thousands of corporate accountants to do nothing but look for ways to escape paying taxes...legally. Everybody gets bent out of shape listening to how evil corporations pay no tax, but that is what our tax code has become. It's been manipulated, tweaked, "reformed", poked, prodded, and turned into a welfare program all in the name of "fairness" and to allow the feds to select whom they believe should be the winners and losers in society.

A consumption tax rids us of this overgrown cancer. During tonight's debate, listen to Herman Cain and his 999 plan. Stunningly simple, yet reviled by the those that look to the current tax code for salvation and survival. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, but it's the right way to go to rid ourselves of our current broken down system.

There are those among us that believe the fairtax.org is the way to go and those that think it's pixie dust. I look at the fairtax as a place to start, not necessarily a place to finish. Either way, the current attempts to change, enhance, modify, reform, add, edit and delete lines of code from the monster that is the US tax code will only further to separate Americans.

stlouiedipalma;906803 wrote:I'm not disputing any of the numbers that you conservatives here have given us. What has me baffled is how the average conservative voter still believes that "trickle down" economics actually works. I'm of the belief that if you completely eliminated taxes on the top 1 or 2% nothing would change. No additional jobs would be created and none of this money would find its way down to the lower classes. The thought that protecting the super wealthy somehow will translate into a better tomorrow for all is a myth, plain and simple. The marketing brains in the Republican Party have done a hell of a job in perpetuating this myth and a whole generation of lower and middle class conservatives have swallowed this lie hook, line and sinker.

The wealthy pay more dollars and a significantly higher percentage than anyone, while 47% of the country pays nothing. Who's the "protected" class again? Gimme a break, man.

fish82;907335 wrote:The wealthy pay more dollars and a significantly higher percentage than anyone, while 47% of the country pays nothing. Who's the "protected" class again? Gimme a break, man.

Bingo. Half the citizens are paying the entire load of all the citizens --- that is a prescirption for disaster for this nation.

[h=1]“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson[/h]

fish82;907335 wrote:The wealthy pay more dollars and a significantly higher percentage than anyone, while 47% of the country pays nothing.

And that's a big part of the problem. They pay nothing, and so they have no stake, no pain and no interest in what the govt spends and taxes. Or wait, they do care about what the govt spends, in so far as it affects the handouts they are receiving.

There is a problem with wealth/pay inequality. But the govt taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not an effective or efficient way to go about it.

Also a huge problem with the incentive to work, and we've seen this in Europe where socialism is increasingly proving to be a failure. They tax and spend more and more, providing handouts which reduce the incentive to work, but also on the other end where the taxes make working harder, being more productive simply not worth it. Then as the tax base shrinks or doesn't grow as it should, they raise rates more, which only compounds the negative incentive to work.

cruiser_96;906906 wrote:Winter is right around the corner!!!

"Render Caesar what is due him."

I don't know about morally, but certain against what our nation was founded on. Which brings up an interesting point, and my pastor has mused about it a few times, did our forefathers have biblical grounds - or were they justified - in revolting and fighting for their independence from English rule?

Anywho, QuakerOats, I don't like the thought that all money is the governments either.

A wise man once said, "If 10% is good enough for Jesus, then it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."

cruiser_96;907783 wrote:“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson never said that.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-will-cease-to-exist-quotation

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Abe Vigoda

Let's go this route... someone, at some point in time, came up with it. And it seems very fitting.

"My plan is a balanced plan that allows us to take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not" -- barack obama

Clearly the problem isn't that the rich don't pay enough taxes, it's that we don't have enough rich people. And clearly the way to attract more rich people is to tax rich people more. Such simple logic and yet only Obama seems to get it.

Also, rich people never take that extra step to hide their money legally when politicians target them for higher taxes -- so Obama's plan will most likely be ultra successful. :rolleyes:

Writerbuckeye;912007 wrote:Also, rich people never take that extra step to hide their money legally when politicians target them for higher taxes -- so Obama's plan will most likely be ultra successful. :rolleyes:

You mean like they won't take their investments overseas, or hire fewer people, or not spend their wealth, etc.? :thumbup:

believer;912101 wrote:You mean like they won't take their investments overseas, or hire fewer people, or not spend their wealth, etc.? :thumbup:

So when we lowered taxes under Bush that stopped companies from taking investments overseas?

Man you're pathetic.

Every response brings up Bush.

I guess that's okay because when liberals do that in discussions, I view it as an automatic surrender of the discussion at-hand. They have nothing of substance to respond with, so they bring up Bush.

Congrats on your surrender.

Tax rates have nothing to do with the wealth disparity in this country.

[video=youtube;hx16a72j__8][/video]

Writerbuckeye;912187 wrote:Man you're pathetic.

Every response brings up Bush.

I guess that's okay because when liberals do that in discussions, I view it as an automatic surrender of the discussion at-hand. They have nothing of substance to respond with, so they bring up Bush.

Congrats on your surrender.

It's a valid question in this case. If lowering taxes is the magic business investment elixir then why did it not work in the last decade? I'm not blaming Bush for all our problems. Just noting that he did exactly what you want Obama to do and it didn't work. (Same thing you could do for stimulus with Obama. Could point out Bush did it and it didn't work so why would it work under Obama). I'm really not playing the blame Bush game here.

But it's great to know you're not willing to have a real conversation unless it involves how eeevvill Obama is.

I Wear Pants;912384 wrote:It's a valid question in this case. If lowering taxes is the magic business investment elixir then why did it not work in the last decade? I'm not blaming Bush for all our problems. Just noting that he did exactly what you want Obama to do and it didn't work. (Same thing you could do for stimulus with Obama. Could point out Bush did it and it didn't work so why would it work under Obama). I'm really not playing the blame Bush game here.

But it's great to know you're not willing to have a real conversation unless it involves how eeevvill Obama is.

I'm not the one who brought up Bush in two separate discussions while sidestepping what was actually being discussed, and attempting to change the conversation in the process.

I consider it a silly game and I won't play. You want to discuss those other issues in separate topics, fine. Just don't use them to try and switch lanes on other stuff that's been posted.

I didn't sidestep anything. The questions I asked were relevant and were going to be used to understand your positions better. Instead you went into "herp durp he's blaming Bush" mode. Which clearly wasn't the case.