White men shun Democrats

Originally posted by maybereal11

Gee, even I know what he's implying here. This is about middle class America being shafted AGAIN by the government. I guess that flew right over your head.



I'll give Vor enough credit to assume if he meant "Middle Class America" he would have said "Middle Class America" rather than "white men".

Strange that in your world those two catergories are interchangable.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by maybereal11]

You know what they say about ASSuming things. But you're smart enough to figure that out too.

Clearly, the middle class is the one left out by health care legislation and taxed again and again and again. The "rich" are taxed as well, but as Ashley brought up in another post, the rich also have deductions not available to the middle class and ways around certain taxes.

But thank you for not commenting on the rest of my post. If this is the only thing you could find to complain about then I'm doing very well.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

reply to post by plumranch

The problem I have with that though is Reagan is revered by many as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. If Obama could fix the damage done by Bush and the previous Democratic Congress then he could also be revered as an equally great president.

Of course, I kind of see where you're coming from - fixing the problems now means that the Democratic-led Congress for the last two years of Bush's term would have to take some responsibility for the state of the nation and they wouldn't want to do that.

I'm of the opinion that Obama has no idea how to fix any of these problems. He can give a good speech on teleprompter and that's it. He's relying on his so-called "experts" to provide him with the information he needs to carry out his agendas, but I don't think many of them know how things ought to be handled, either.

Originally posted by sos37
Clearly, the middle class is the one left out by health care legislation and taxed again and again and again.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

Please...with specifics...explain to me how the middle class is excluded from healthcare legislation.

also please explain how President Obama's policies increase taxes for the middle-class.

I am asking kindly...please no long winded, disparate, vitriol filled rants. Just back your statements up with facts not opinion.

Originally posted by sos37

But thank you for not commenting on the rest of my post. If this is the only thing you could find to complain about then I'm doing very well.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

It is not that I could not find anything to complain about, but rather the rest of your post was a rambling laundry list of unsupported, typical "Obama is the end of America" garbage. It is like a reading a transcript to a Rush Limbaugh broadcast.

Where to start when someone responds to one topic with a rhetorical laundry list of GOP talking points?

Best to ignore those posts. But if you need me to say it...the fact that I don't respond to some rhetorical garbage list doesn't infer I believe it.

Try supporting just what you claimed above....and we can try to have genuine discussion.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by SirPsychoSexy

 

Ask any "real" black person who knows anything about politics, and they will tell you that republican is the real way to vote.

WTF is a "real" black person???


And people wonder why some people say that "some" opposition to Obama is racism.

Any person of color that attends a Tea Party rally. Obviously there are very few "real" black people

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There are two facts that should be borne in mind.

1. White men are the only group in history to have voluntarily released their grip on power.

If it were voluntary, there wouldn't have been need for civil rights movement ,there would not need to be laws on the books and being enforced to ensure equality for all races and genders.

2. Historically, there has never been a more effective force of political and military might as that has been brought to bear by white males.

Historically? I'd say that the Mongols and the various Caliphates would have something to say about that. The while male has had a nice 300 year run, but it's looking like the Chinese male might finally start moving outside his country. Look out!

Silly little cliches and barbs will be useless when a sleeping giant is awakened.

Awakened to do what, vote against its own self-interests after being manipulated by fearmongers?

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by sos37
Clearly, the middle class is the one left out by health care legislation and taxed again and again and again.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

Please...with specifics...explain to me how the middle class is excluded from healthcare legislation.

also please explain how President Obama's policies increase taxes for the middle-class.

Surely. Take a look here:

Source: online.wsj.com...

Consider, then, the figure below constructed for a two-earner family with two school-age children, one of whom is in college.



The solid line shows the Effective Marginal Tax Rates (EMTR) based on income tax law prior to the health-care bill (it excludes the impact of the payroll taxes). The dashed line displays the damaging increases in the EMTR assuming the health insurance premium subsidies contained in the Senate health-care bill and insurance cost estimates provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation. As a family's income rises above 133% of poverty, Medicaid eligibility will be eliminated but a family that does not receive health insurance from their employer will receive a subsidy to purchase health insurance in the "exchange." In turn, however, as their efforts yield higher income, subsidies are clawed back or effectively taxed away

And

According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 20 million people would receive a subsidy to purchase insurance through an exchange and thus face a higher EMTR.

How can a family be expected to get ahead when taking an extra shift, finding a way for a second parent to work, or investing in night school courses to qualify for a raise means handing the government as much as 41% of the additional income earned?

So in a nutshell this says if you earn above a certain amount but can't afford insurance, the government will give your family a subsidy to buy insurance.

However, that subsidy also counts as INCOME and thus raises your EMTR (Effective Marginal Tax Rate). End to end, it will result in up to 41% tax increase on lower and middle income families and single people.

Also there's this piece:

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich."

online.wsj.com...

I am asking kindly...please no long winded, disparate, vitriol filled rants. Just back your statements up with facts not opinion.

Originally posted by sos37

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


Thanks for doing your homework, sos37!

The return of the inflation tax demonstrates once again the stealth radicalism that animates ObamaCare. In the case of inflation indexing, Democrats would repeal a 30-year bipartisan consensus that it is unfair to tax unreal gains in income, thus hitting millions of middle-class Americans over time with tax rates advertised as only hitting "the rich."

The Obama team will be out this week spreading their propaganda and lies! It will be time to set the record straight.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by plumranch

 

The problem I have with that though is Reagan is revered by many as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. If Obama could fix the damage done by Bush and the previous Democratic Congress then he could also be revered as an equally great president.

Reagan was responsible for huge tax cuts for the rich, funded, of course, by the federal government. He made the rich richer. The middle class, in the meantime, was in decline and wages remained stagnant. If you're looking at him through the eyes of the most privileged class, he was a great president. He didn't do anything for me.

The recession that Jimmy Carter had to deal with was the aftermath of the ending of the Vietnam War. It would have happened to any president who was in office then.

I personally am glad President Obama is not like Ronald Reagan.

reply to post by sos37


Thank you Sos for the specific example of why you believe that HCR is a tax hike for the middle class.

The opinion piece was written by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Alex Brill..

If either name is familiar it is because they work for the GOP writing pieces just like this.

Here is a little Irony...Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the author and former McCain advisor is losing his Cobra coverage and has a pre-existing condition...I can't make this stuff up..

If history had taken a different course, Doug Holtz-Eakin would be inside the McCain White House driving the Republican president's domestic agenda, including health-care reform. But now, one year after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost the presidential election, the man who was by McCain's side as the campaign's top health-care guru remains unemployed -- and his COBRA health coverage is running out.

Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky "preexisting conditions" that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage.

"A right renal autotransplant," he said, pointing to his abdomen as he described the 1990 transplant surgery he went through after one of his kidneys was damaged in an accident. "They got rid of the artery, moved my kidney and rebuilt me for the 21st century. If you look at my file, any insurance company would go, 'Hmm . . .' "

www.washingtonpost.com...

He will be among the first in line for "Obamacare"

OK...that said, lets play find the BS. Let's look at something he alludes to but doesn't fully confess in the article...

The current law policies show that there are already some lower income families facing EMTRs above those in the middle class.

....

Every "phase-out" of a tax credit or subsidy program is an EMTR in disguise..
...

This year marks a crucial time in the future of tax policy. The tax laws enacted in 2001 and 2003 will sunset, along with the recent tax credits included in the so-called stimulus bill.

Read those sentences carefully and ask the right questions. Are the tax credits going to sunset? Has congress extended them?

What he is talking about is ANY TAX CREDITS OR SUBSIDIES.

YES...as folks make more money and government benefits recede...they will have an over-sized gap or "relative" tax increase. EMTR. Why because they no longer recieve subsidy from the government.

This rambling article attacking reform could have been written about any government assistance program or tax break. Just inserrt the "Earned Income Tax Credit" or "Unemployment Benefits" and the same logic holds up.

Also...In order to make his case...he has gotten pretty selective with his example...two earner couple, two children making between roughly 45k and 60k with a "marginal" (important word) effective tax rate that increases as subsidies scale back. Two earners each making a maximum of 30K per year for two child household? that is middle class? I think they need subsidies...Douglas is making the case they should not get them because they won't be ready to pay taxes as they earn more...dumb.

AGAIN ..The reason that "marginal" or relative rate is over-sized is because they are losing subsidies. He mentions this above, but does his best not to own that undeniable truth.

What is the "marginal" effective tax rate for someone recieving unemployment or welfare as they return to work? HUGE, because they were recieving money for not working before...it's relative ...and if he believes that this will discourage people from making more money...then he also believes that folks on unemployment or welfare have no interest in striving for more money either.

Bottom line...He is claiming this is a consequence of "Obamacare" and exagerates the effect when he knows damn well this is a phenomena of ANY tax breaks, subsidy, EIC, unemployment benefit etc. for the middle class.

So... unless he is prepared to call for an elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit that both GOP and Dems support...he has no ground to stand on, overall a pretty silly effort.

The only ones touting this article are those that do not understand finance or economics and just hoping the headline will effect folks.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 30-3-2010 by maybereal11]

I elected him. I think I'll keep him.

Sit down and shut up.

America - Love it or leave it!

Barack the Vote!

Let's get this (democratic) Party Started!

I'm keeping the health care. Die if you want to.

Me and my 45 stand by the President. I pity the fool who comes between us.

I looked online and there are no PRO-Obama web sites other than the White House. Nothing resembling the organization Republicans and Tea Partiers have managed to create. Like a sports team image.

Hate Obama websites on the other hand come a dime a dozen.
People don't understand that satisfied people do not complain and that is why you see opposition and not defense coming forward in droves.

It does not mean the defense is not a silent powerful majority.

Easily influenced people will follow the loudest voices.
That is why Tea Partiers carry megaphones.
Perhaps the white men are in like a pied piper mode following each other over the edge?

These are a few of the T-Shirts I'll offer those white men leaving the party and encourage them to stay with the winners. I will ask why they will sell their souls in fear or for profit. When you deny another a basic right because you are more concerned about your own comfort and present state of grace you are shooting yourself in the foot. Because your foot hurts. You have no job and your soul hurts. Don't kill it to save it.

What profit a mans soul...if he loses it?

I think everyone is just looking for a backbone to defend what is right.

Somebody just needs to provide one.

Sometimes that inspiration can be found in a T-Shirt or a Flag, or somebody hollering really loud.

What do you all think? I am anxious for your thoughts...

...so anxious I am leaving for the day.
Not to be glib - I just know I will gain a few more FOES.
I do not have the freedom to defend the President I elected to do (almost) exactly what he is doing, without getting threatened for my views.











[edit on 30-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by sos37
However, that subsidy also counts as INCOME

Please provide a link explaining where individual subsidies will be counted as Income.

I have yet to find it anywhere in the bill...

[edit on 30-3-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by plumranch

 

The problem I have with that though is Reagan is revered by many as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history. If Obama could fix the damage done by Bush and the previous Democratic Congress then he could also be revered as an equally great president.

Reagan was responsible for huge tax cuts for the rich, funded, of course, by the federal government. He made the rich richer. The middle class, in the meantime, was in decline and wages remained stagnant. If you're looking at him through the eyes of the most privileged class, he was a great president. He didn't do anything for me.

The recession that Jimmy Carter had to deal with was the aftermath of the ending of the Vietnam War. It would have happened to any president who was in office then.

I personally am glad President Obama is not like Ronald Reagan.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid buddy. The rich don't work at all because their money works for them. When Your money earns You more money its called capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes were 10% under Bush but during the state of the union adress Obama said He was going to lower it to 0%...

So who does Obama really love the middle class whom pay all the taxes or the rich that pay 0% in taxes.

Originally posted by jkm1864
Capital gains taxes were 10% under Bush but during the state of the union adress Obama said He was going to lower it to 0%...

So who does Obama really love the middle class whom pay all the taxes or the rich that pay 0% in taxes.

Ummm Crazy wrong.

Seriously Check your facts before you accuse folks of drinking kool-aide.

Obama's budget: Impact on your taxes

In addition, the long-term capital gains tax rate would increase to 20%, up from 15% currently.

money.cnn.com...

reply to post by Sestias

Reagan was responsible for huge tax cuts for the rich, funded, of course, by the federal government. He made the rich richer. The middle class, in the meantime, was in decline and wages remained stagnant.

Reagan was one of our few landmark presidencies. He proved rather remarkably that a reduction in taxes could bring an increase in total tax revenues even from the rich. This had already been proven in the 1920s and again by the John Kennedy tax cuts. Democrats argued vehemently against it at the time saying it would decrease tax revenues and give unnecessary tax breaks for the rich. But the rich actually paid more taxes under Reagan because the no longer had to use tax shelters and the new lower taxes were deemed fair. Reagan lowered taxes across the board 25%. Everyone was treated the same.

Lessons for Tax Reform, JEC

the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall.
The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.
Given the current interest in tax reform and tax relief, a review of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on taxpayer behavior and tax burden provides useful information. During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.

reply to post by plumranch


Reagan believed in little green men from mars too.

And how do we know when exactly his Alzheimer set in???
Was he President when the first signs began to hinder his memory, his perceptions and ability to govern?
Maybe they were propping him up and moving his lips.

There is a fine line between health and wellness... don't we know?

How can you really take a guy like that seriously?
He was a television star not a statesman, like many "attractive" (yes it is a criteria) Republican candidates they run on popular appeal with the masses. If you have that you can always gin up the rest.
Skill and ability are in fact discouraged, (you are a figurehead after all) because make no mistake, big business and the defense department run the country when the Republicans are in charge.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Irregardless, what Reagan did was remarkable!

By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth.

The country was suffering from the Stagflation of the 70's, Americans were out of work, production was down, Reagan lowered taxation rates in 1981 and again in 1986 resulting in a flood of tax revenue, especially from the rich.

We could use a president now that understands human behavior and tax policy. Raising taxes and piling on debt during recession is exactly the wrong policy.

You bring up a good point about Reagan and his belief in extraterrestrials. Apparently he was one of the last presidents to be briefed although Clinton hinted that he knew something. I don't think too many of the ATSers will find this astonishing.

Identity politics are so passe.

reply to post by plumranch


good answer
the star is from me !

That is probably since most of them are insecure, psychologically & emotionally challenged prisoners of the own ego images.

Real men know the right is usually wrong.
Real men are tough enough not to be afraid to show some intellect & humanity,

& state it & show it calmly in public.

Scared ape/dog men who watch FOX exclusively are trying to prop up their wounded egos & intellectually crippled psychologies.
They must have some objectified human enemy to de-humanize. Any of the real challenges we face as a nation & species are too sophisticated, intricate & ephemeral for them to even begin to deal with.