Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act

I dont think there anything wrong with Biden's comments. Right now the middle class is reeling while Bush tax cuts has helped the rich. I think than in extreme times changes are need it.

UBS bank vowed Thursday to stop offering offshore banking services in the U.S. after legislators accused it and other banks of helping wealthy Americans hide about US$1.5 trillion in overseas tax havens

www.chinapost.com.tw...

Paying higher taxes might be or not the patriotic thing to do, but hiding your money in overseas account in order to not pay taxes in a era that they have gotten the fattest tax breaks in years is certainly a crime.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by RRconservative


Actually with the incredible national debt now been increased by financial institutions bail outs, both political candidates and their VPs will be face in the white house with a big decision and cutting taxes is not going to be one of them

US budget and financial deficits are the most important problems facing this nation.

While the Fed keeps playing with the dollar value this become a problem for the GDP.

Americans can not longer buy with their dollar what they use too, that is inflation.

So a nation that depend on consumerism to keep afloat is now been faced with the fact that Americans can not longer afford imported goods.

Higher taxes in an economy facing unemployment, that is already in double digits if the government was honest enough to tell the truth will only bring more crisis to the American tax payer.

Either way both political party candidates are at a death end if they really, really knows what is going on with US work force.

Our nation is now supported by a raising debt and not real income.

That means that family incomes and hard working America's income will not longer support taxes in America.

So I wonder how in the heck money will come from to support this nation in the future.

Biden may try to push taxes if he and Obama win the elections but the question is Can the America tax payer be able to afford it?

Well that's fine. People can advocate the trickle-effect here all they want. They can say that this will only hurt the middle class more.


Go for it. I don't care. Here's what I know:

When Clinton had a liberal tax reform in 1992-2000, the economy boomed. Unemployment was reasonable again (after the first Bush hike). Pay wages were acceptable - still low, but livable. The power of the dollar was strong.

Our economy kicked ass.

2000-2008 trickle down effect - Wellllllllll... not so much.

(I'm also tired about hearing that natural disasters are causing it. They are always there. They happen to every President. It's an excuse, and it's a pity that we let them get away with it).

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sublime620]

A Good Example of Why People Need to Investigate Before Believing

The Golden Years

A Few of the Similarities

Much like this election, in 1992, after years of Republican control, the country wanted change! Boy, is that a familiar word.

Source

"There's nothing very profound about this election," a Pennsylvania political scientist, G. Terry Madonna, said more than a week ago. "There's a massive pro-change vote."

You see, again, like the 1992 election, the economy was struggling. Unemployment was around 7.5%, for instance. And everyone was saying familiar things like:

"I'm worried my kids will never have it as good as I do."

And the President said things like this:

Then Mr. Bush spent much of the last six months arguing that things were not as bad as they seemed, which wasted what little credibility he had left.

Kind of reminds me of when they told us the economic issues "were all in our heads". I must remind you we are still talking about 1992. I know it sounds like this election, but it's not.

What They Said About Clinton's Plan

Much of it can be explained with the YouTube video of Bill Clinton v George HW Bush:



Watch Bill Clinton show empathy while Bush goes on the defensive. Watch Clinton relate to this lady, while Bush says he can't even understand the question (though she did mistake the National Debt for a recession).

Bill attacks trickle down economics.

Originally said by Bill Clinton
It is because America has not invested in its people. It is because we have not grown. It is because we've had 12 years of trickle down economics. We've gone from 1st to 12th in the world in wages. We've had four years where we've produced no private sector jobs. Most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago. It is because we are in the grip of a failed economic theory.

Again, it all hits too close to home with this election. We are coming off 8 years of a failed trickle down effect economy. People are making no more than they did 8 years ago.

But hey, what did they say about Clinton's economic policy?

10 Steps Backward - Bill Clinton's Economic Plan

Clinton is headed for a red-ink record. The plan adds $916 billion to the national debt over the next four years. That's $183 billion more than Reagan's cumulative first-term deficit and $238 billion

more than his second term deficit. Reagan is the fellow who cut our tax rates by 25 per cent and built up our defenses. Clinton is the two-headed monster that is raising our taxes, cutting our defenses, and still adding the equivalent of five and a half years of Reagan deficits to the economy in only four years.

Sounds a lot like what we hear in the news and on these very boards, doesn't it? Cutting taxes on the poor and raising them on the rich - oh you Robin Hood you!

Clinton's policies are atavistic, a throwback to a socialist past that the rest of the world has repudiated. Clintonomics is already making the U.S. a reactionary force in the world economy by casting doubt on our trade relations with Europe, Japan, and Mexico. Socialists like nothing better than restricted opportunities. The fewer the entrepreneurs and the slower the economic growth, the greater the demand for redistribution. Under President Clinton, America seems destined to relive the lessons of the twentieth century.

A socialist nation, eh? I hear a lot about that today. People accusing Hillary and Obama as socialists.

How Did the Clinton Economy Really Perform?
The Simple Arithmetic of Republican Failure

Job Creation

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs
Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs
Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year

Government Spending

How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Democratic Average: $1.16

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Republican Average: $1.29

Increases in Government Debt

Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3
Democratic Total: 0.6

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1
Republican Total: 4.3

Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8
Democratic Total: 1.3

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4
Republican Total: 3.0

Census.gov
Again, the cold facts. You can plainly see that the poverty level went down the entire Clinton tenure. It was as low as it had been since Carter.

All People Below Poverty Level

Year %
1979 11.7
1983 15.2
1990 13.5
2000 11.3
2006 12.3

National Debt


Source


My Point

Look into it before you decide. Don't let people tell you that tax breaks for you will only hurt your pockets more. When Obama talks about a tax break, I promise you he doesn't mean a $300 check that will barely fill your cabinets with groceries.

The trickle down effect is a failure. It never worked, it was never meant to work.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by RRconservative


I guess he is unpatriotic then. Did he pay extra taxes? Nothing stops anyone from paying extra taxes.

Have you noticed that liberals who complain about low taxes NEVER pay more than they have too and they always take tax deduction?



[edit on 9/18/08 by mabus325]

Originally posted by intrepid
It's only in context if the OP and/or everyone else here makes over $250,000/yr. That's the demographic that Biden is addressing.

I read it and I knew exactly what demographic he was claiming that he'd hit up for more money.

'Soak the rich' taxes on the rich are NOT fair to them.

Just because they make more, doesn't mean they should be punished.

The only FAIR tax is a flat tax.

It's UNPATRIOTIC and UNAMERICAN for anyone to punish a group of Americans simply because they manage to make more money then other groups do.


edited immediately to fix quote

[edit on 9/18/2008 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by mabus325


I spend all that time putting that post up, and you return with that obvious argumentative fallacy?

I believe that one falls under one of these categories of how to change the subject:

Accuse Your Opponent of Doing What He is Accusing You of (or worse)

Attack the Person

But I think it most falls under the category of:

Beg the Question

Don't fret, it's a popular one, and a goodie. If used well, it can really be effective.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Can you explain to me why Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Penny Pritzker were/are on the Obama campaign??

The whole problem with this entire subject, and IMO the reason for all the fuss, is the fundamentally flawed approach of taxing on the income side.

The only really fair tax is a CONSUMPTION tax. There should be no tax on income at all.

That way, if two people make respectively $30K a year and $3000K, but they live in the same kind of house, in the same kind of neighborhood, drive the same kind of car, etc, then they should pay the same kind of tax.

That way, it is entirely up to the individual what their contribution to the country is... want low taxes? Live frugally. Want to live a luxurious life? Pay for it.

Simple.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Sounds a lot better than the over extensive, barely understood, heavily shaded gray area, complicated system currently in place.

In addition, government will probably rake in more revenue with all those people who like to try to keep up with the Jones.

Originally posted by yeahright

By the way, Senator Biden, anyone can pay additional amounts in taxes voluntarily, should they so choose. And considering all the perks and bennies you senators get (like that sweet healthcare and pension deal), I think you should step up and lead by example. Just how patriotic are you, sir?

My favorite post on this thread so far.

I say to all here and across the country that favor Biden's point of view, put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is and ante up some extra dollars yourselves.

Until you've all done that, buzz off on telling me I shouldn't mind paying more taxes to fund waste and greed.

reply to post by RRconservative


SO RR- do you make more than $250,000.00?

If not, stop complaining, you will get more money back with Obama.

I can't believe you guys still want to throw more of your tax money at big business. This week has made it clear that big business could give a #@$@ about AMERICA'S
well being.

You have an opportunity to pay less taxes and you guys are complaining???

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by RRconservative

 

SO RR- do you make more than $250,000.00?

If not, stop complaining, you will get more money back with Obama.

I can't believe you guys still want to throw more of your tax money at big business. This week has made it clear that big business could give a #@$@ about AMERICA'S
well being.

You have an opportunity to pay less taxes and you guys are complaining???

This is the liberal mentality at work here. Let's live off other people's money. Believe it or not, there are some places in this country that $250,000 is not a lot money to raise a family.

It is hypocrisy when politicians want to raise taxes yet they don't pay more taxes themselves, and in the case of Biden and Obama - Biden has a very poor record of giving to charity and Obama only began to give when he started to run for President.

If you own a small business, such as a subchapter S, and you make more that $250,000 under the Obiden plan you will be taxed.

This is the Franklin Raines and Penny Pritzker plan.

I've got your Patriot message right here. Throw these bums out of office, get out of Iraq and take care of our infrastructure at home.

I'd be more than happy to join up on the throw the bums out brigade.

reply to post by centurion1211


Waste and greed?

All you have done is show that you have no fundamental understanding of the subject.

reply to post by jpm1602


Biden now has justified higher taxes by making it a duty — as a Catholic:

Fired up in a room full of union members, Joe Biden angrily defended both his ticket’s tax plan and his own claim that tax hikes for the rich are patriotic, while urging fellow Democrats to stand their ground on what he said was a values debate. Biden, speaking to members of the Laborers International Union of North America, began by saying that there is “no disagreement” between John McCain and Barack Obama on the need for tax cuts. The real issue, he said, is who gets them. “Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said. “Now it’d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.”

[edit on 9/18/08 by mabus325]

[edit on 9/18/08 by mabus325]

reply to post by mabus325


That fires you up? We're basically in a holy war, and you are upset because he thinks that his religion teaches people to care about their neighbors?

Grasp for another straw, and then come back.

Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most

Now if most religious people would say things like that more often, it wouldn't be half bad.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


This is coming from a guy who could only come up with $300 last year for charity.

Biden is flawed. I am flawed. You are flawed. I don't like the church politico mix.

It should be a purely logical conclusion.

Somehow I don't see the upper echelon of American society readily surrendering their fare share to increased taxation. It will fall upon those that can least attribute to it.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by jpm1602]