It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
How can you even try to make this point in this economy? The tax cuts have been in effect for nearly a decade, and in that decade we lost jobs.


Actually, the unemployment numbers were relatively steady for the first eight years, following the tax cuts.

2001 4.7 %
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 www.bls.gov...

Then, in 2008, the political climate changed. It became apparent the Democrats would take control of the executive branch, in addition to the already controlled Congress. Also apparent, was the intent of the Democrats to enact legislation that would be extremely detrimental to the job creators; namely, "health care" reform and tax increases. The result,

2009 9.3 %
2010 9.8

I know there were other contributing factors, but I believe those circumstances to have had the greatest negative effect. The question you must ask yourself is: Considering the uncertainty of future expenses, why would anyone expand their business and create new jobs or recall laid-off employees? To put it into perspective for the average person: If you have been placed in an interim supervisory position and given a pay increase to that higher rate, but do not know for how long that temporary increase will continue, would you enter into a lengthy mortgage contract, that you could not afford on your normal salary? That would be a very bad move, wouldn't it?


The Republicans fought to allow the top 1% of our populations money to not be taken. They fought not for the middle class, in fact the Republican idea was to just keep the Bush tax cuts on ONLY that 1% and have EVERYONE ELSE pay for it.


I'd be curious to read anything you have substantiating this claim. It is my understanding the entirety of the current tax rates were the goal of the Republicans, until the Democrats decided to play political games with them, by lumping in the increase in unemployment benefits and allowing tax increases on the job creators. I find it akin to outright theft, for the Democrats to be advocating the taking of more money from any American, while refusing to even attempt to curb spending. Absolutely ludicrous.


So unless YOU, WTFover, are in that 1%, you are arguing against your own best interests. Which is usually the case of people who vote Republican.


The interesting thing is, I didn't vote for a single Republican in the 2010 elections and I did not vote for McCain in 2008. And, I most definitely am not a top 1%er. But, I do think the Republicans are on the right side of this issue. What is usually the case of people who vote Democrat? Those who buy into the class warfare illusion, perpetrated by liberals, who themselves are elitists.


The money that the Republicans "saved" for those who least need it could keep alot of unemployed people from literally losing their homes, families, health, and even lives.


The great majority of those currently receiving unemployment benefits, don't want extensions. They want jobs. And, people receiving unemployment benefits don't create jobs.

In conclusion, my position is simple. No American should be taxed at a higher rate than another. Ever.
edit on 8-12-2010 by WTFover because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The Democrats and Republicans are both different sides to the same coin..............and both hypocrites.

It's all rigged at this point.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killface
It is easier than you can believe for this quasi-fascist government monster to continue to pillage us for all we are worth, when we are too busy arguing whether or not the right claw or the left claw is more dangerous.


And this sounds great as a sound byte, you should be a politician. Fine, you hate the government, both sides suck. Now what? Just quit because you dont approve of the government? Yeah thats effective. How about you put forward a solution instead of just some generic non-answer that makes everyone feel warm but provides no answers?

Tough decisions have to be made, and BOTH sides have to compromise. Unfortunately, the Republicans literally refuse to budge....they want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest americans indefinitely in this bad economy. If someone just cannot see how that is an impossible stance to come from in this economy, then they must be completely brainwashed.

In case everyone hasnt noticed, most of America is out of work, with no prospects of going back. If not social programs, or paying off our debt, maybe the government will use the money to make more jobs, because apparently the people getting to keep their money arent doing it. 10 years of Bush tax cuts for the rich, 10 years of job losses.

When do you people start following the track record?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

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


That whole "too big to fail" justification was a total fabrication. The claim of a domino effect was merely politics of fear. As proof, I offer one word....Ford.
edit on 8-12-2010 by WTFover because: corrected BB code for bold text



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am doing something, I did propose a solution. I have taken it upon myself to spread factual information both online and in my everyday life, I am trying to get the word out and open peoples eyes from the dream that electing an official is going to bring real change.

You accuse my of not proposing a solution, and in your post say a compromise would be necessary, something I said much earlier in this thread. My solution is to rally Americans to treat each other as allies, rather than the enemy.

I am also doing my part to promote local economy and starve the corporate beasts, by buying only local products.

I believe this to be far more effective than arguing red vs. blue, and voting more criminals into office.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Actually, the unemployment numbers were relatively steady for the first eight years, following the tax cuts.

2001 4.7 %
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 www.bls.gov...


So you dont think those numbers fudged at all? Not even a little bit? Not even when we know today unemployment is closer to 20% than the "official" 9.6%?



I'd be curious to read anything you have substantiating this claim. It is my understanding the entirety of the current tax rates were the goal of the Republicans, until the Democrats decided to play political games with them, by lumping in the increase in unemployment benefits and allowing tax increases on the job creators.


From Obamas speech the other day...you did actually listen to it or read it, didnt you?

"And I won’t allow any extension of these tax cuts for the wealthy, even a temporary one, without also extending unemployment insurance for Americans who’ve lost their jobs or additional tax cuts for working families and small businesses — because if Republicans truly believe we shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone while our economy is still recovering from the recession, then surely we shouldn’t cut taxes for wealthy people while letting them rise on parents and students and small businesses.

As a result, we have arrived at a framework for a bipartisan agreement. For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts — not just the Bush tax cuts, but those that have been put in place over the last couple of years that are helping parents and students and other folks manage their bills."

The Republicans wanted to let the tax cuts expire on everyone except the top 2%, and wanted to repeal the Obama tax cuts. That was their compromise. They also refuse to sign off on UE unless they get the tax cut for the top 2%.



And, I most definitely am not a top 1%er. But, I do think the Republicans are on the right side of this issue.


Why? you would be agreeing that the top 2% should keep their money, and agree to pay more tax yourself. Why do you think that is a good idea?


The great majority of those currently receiving unemployment benefits, don't want extensions. They want jobs. And, people receiving unemployment benefits don't create jobs.


Agreed. But the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% arent creating jobs either. Not in the past 10 years they have been active. Are you going to create jobs in the next 3 weeks so people can pay their mortgage and their car note? Are the rich? Who is? If they arent going to create jobs BY THE END OF THE MONTH, what is going to happen to 5 million Americans?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killface
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I am doing something, I did propose a solution. I have taken it upon myself to spread factual information both online and in my everyday life, I am trying to get the word out and open peoples eyes from the dream that electing an official is going to bring real change.

You accuse my of not proposing a solution, and in your post say a compromise would be necessary, something I said much earlier in this thread. My solution is to rally Americans to treat each other as allies, rather than the enemy.

I am also doing my part to promote local economy and starve the corporate beasts, by buying only local products.

I believe this to be far more effective than arguing red vs. blue, and voting more criminals into office.


Well I agree with you, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Red VS Blue is a needed debate, because the Red is consistently hypocritical and out of touch with 95% of America. If you say you are bringing factual information, please feel free to debate any of the facts I have brought to this thread.

Republicans consistenly accuse the left of "arguing with their feelings", when in reality, they do that constantly.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Are you implying that democrats ARE in touch with 95% of America? Also that they are not hypocritical?
If you refuse to see the flaws in your political party of choice, no amount of numbers or evidence will make any difference to you.

Is it so hard to believe that democrats don't have your best interest at heart? If they restructured the economy, do you really believe they would make you prosperous? They are still politicians and human, and will get theirs and make sure their friends get theirs too before they consider the lower classes. They would simply do it in a slightly different fashion.

End the fed, cut our interventionist military's budget, stop borrowing trillions of dollars...these are the real steps towards progress, and guess what, these issues are colorless.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
From Obamas speech the other day...you did actually listen to it or read it, didnt you?

The Republicans wanted to let the tax cuts expire on everyone except the top 2%, and wanted to repeal the Obama tax cuts.


Seriously? You quote politi-speak from Obama as proof "the Republicans wanted to let the tax cuts expire on everyone except the top 2%". Come on... You know that isn't going to work.


They also refuse to sign off on UE unless they get the tax cut for the top 2%.


Again... Seriously? Just because the Dems try to use that tactic to promote class warfare, doesn't mean you should insult my intelligence with it. There is no "tax cut" for the top 2%. It is an attempt to maintain the tax rates at the current levels. Also, the dishonesty in that claim is astounding. The only reason the Dems lumped the two issues together was to manufacture a political football. Another typical tactic. Why didn't they separate them and give them each their own vote, if they were serious about doing what is best for the people?


Why? you would be agreeing that the top 2% should keep their money, and agree to pay more tax yourself.


You really must provide proof of claims, such as this, if you are to have any hope of converting me to your position. Where do you get that anyone, Dem or Rep, is seeking a tax increase on the middle class? But, remember, proof is a Republican saying it. Not a Democrat saying that is what the Republicans want.

And, why do you continue to the ridiculous politi-speak of misidentifying the debate as the wealthy not paying more than their fair share of the tax burden. No one is saying they want the "top 2%" to keep all of their money.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


By the way, have you noticed Obama is now on board with keeping the current tax rates?

WH warns tax defeat could trigger new recession




Raising the direst alarm yet, the Obama administration warned fellow Democrats on Wednesday that if they defeat the big tax-cut compromise detested by many liberals, they could jolt the nation back into recession.

news.yahoo.com...



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Seriously? You quote politi-speak from Obama as proof "the Republicans wanted to let the tax cuts expire on everyone except the top 2%". Come on... You know that isn't going to work.


Well, I have looked everywhere for an alternate plan, and surprisingly I cannot find one...Google "Republican tax cut plan" for yourself. You cannot find anything opposite of what Obama (and I) claim. Considering Obama also made a concession in the estate tax, including and exemption increase from 3.5 million to 5 million, and a drop in the rate a full 10 percentage points from 45 to 35%, are you saying Obama was exaggerating?



Again... Seriously? Just because the Dems try to use that tactic to promote class warfare, doesn't mean you should insult my intelligence with it. There is no "tax cut" for the top 2%. It is an attempt to maintain the tax rates at the current levels. Also, the dishonesty in that claim is astounding. The only reason the Dems lumped the two issues together was to manufacture a political football. Another typical tactic. Why didn't they separate them and give them each their own vote, if they were serious about doing what is best for the people?


Here is where your logic and reasoning fail you. You are right, it is an attempt to keep the current tax rates...which are ridiculously low for the highest earners. It IS an extension of the so called "BUSH TAX CUTS", so yes IT WOULD BE A CUT, a continuation of cuts. Furthermore, the Republicans refuse to even debate the unemployment unless they get tax cuts. What do you mean lumped the issue together? It was a Republican refusal to even debate the issue that caused a "lumping".



You really must provide proof of claims, such as this, if you are to have any hope of converting me to your position. Where do you get that anyone, Dem or Rep, is seeking a tax increase on the middle class? But, remember, proof is a Republican saying it. Not a Democrat saying that is what the Republicans want.

And, why do you continue to the ridiculous politi-speak of misidentifying the debate as the wealthy not paying more than their fair share of the tax burden. No one is saying they want the "top 2%" to keep all of their money.


As per CBS news, 67% of Americans think the tax cuts on households over 250K/year should be allowed to expire. This is the Democratic position. The more that people over 250k/year pay, the less that people under 250k/year pay. That is simple mathematics. So the majority of Americans do not want people who make more than 250K/year to pay less than they do now....however, this IS what Republicans want.


edit on 8-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: speeling



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




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


Imagine two political parties that don't hardly ever agree but still manage to work together enough so that those who elected them are not left hanging in a thread, twisting in the wind.

Ahem... *wake up!*

Now realize that those you DID elect don't give a flying rat's butt what you think and will forward their own agenda regardless.

As long as we allow 'party politics', it will be this way. It's time to make politicians accountable.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killface
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Are you implying that democrats ARE in touch with 95% of America? Also that they are not hypocritical?
If you refuse to see the flaws in your political party of choice, no amount of numbers or evidence will make any difference to you.


As I mentioned, 2/3 of the American populace want the tax cuts to expire on households over 250K/year. So I guess the Democrats are in touch with at least 66% of the people on this issue.

Usually in terms of economics, Democrats are on the side of people. But through "God, guns, and gays" the Republicans manage to continually push an agenda of friendly to big business/hurtful to small business while appealing to the basest instincts of a lot of good American citizens.



Is it so hard to believe that democrats don't have your best interest at heart? If they restructured the economy, do you really believe they would make you prosperous? They are still politicians and human, and will get theirs and make sure their friends get theirs too before they consider the lower classes. They would simply do it in a slightly different fashion.

End the fed, cut our interventionist military's budget, stop borrowing trillions of dollars...these are the real steps towards progress, and guess what, these issues are colorless.


I am not saying the Democrats are the greatest thing since sliced bread. But they generally seem to be more pro-populace, pro-environment whereas Republicans seem to be pro-big business and...pro- big business. Thats all they are.

End the Fed, stop intervening, stop borrowing sure. But what about all the intervening we have already done? As I said before, we are still paying for Nam.

And still no one will answer my question:

View our government as a business. Tax cuts expiring for the top 2% loses an income stream of 800 billion. How are you going to make up that income? Who is going to pay for it, if not the top 2%?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


By the way, have you noticed Obama is now on board with keeping the current tax rates?

WH warns tax defeat could trigger new recession




Raising the direst alarm yet, the Obama administration warned fellow Democrats on Wednesday that if they defeat the big tax-cut compromise detested by many liberals, they could jolt the nation back into recession.

news.yahoo.com...



Wait, so I quote Obama to you, and you bellow "You expect me to believe that partisan crap??" and then you turn around and quote me the White House as a source, and since it agrees with what you say, it is now an infallible source? Come on.

And "trigger a new recession"? How can it be a new one when we arent out of the old one? When is a recession a depression? There is no end in sight....manufacturing jobs arent coming back to America until our living standards are in line with the Indian or Chinese peasant. The Republicans continually vote to destroy the middle class while empowering the elites of society, ie the top 10%. How anyone can claim that the left are "elitists" obviously is doubletalking and has not thought the issue through.
edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Wait, so I quote Obama to you, and you bellow "You expect me to believe that partisan crap??" and then you turn around and quote me the White House as a source, and since it agrees with what you say, it is now an infallible source? Come on.


The difference is (and I suspect you really know this): I quoted Obama on something Obama actually said. On the other hand, throughout this thread, you have only repeated something a Dem has told you a Rep has said. For hearsay to acceptable, it must be corroborated. Otherwise, it is just rhetoric. Without wanting to accept it, you've already proved this to yourself, by not finding any direct evidence any of what you've said about the intentions of Reps.


Tax cuts expiring for the top 2% loses an income stream of 800 billion.


You can't just continue to repeat the Dem mantra and either a) expect it to become true or b) expect anyone but the feeble-minded to believe it. There are no new tax cuts, therefore there is no loss of income. The money has not been there. Unfortunately, both Dems and Reps have continued to spend like it was, since and before the inception of the tax cuts.

If you are to, seriously, look at the issue from the perspective of a business, the solution is to cut spending. It is impossible to guarantee an increase in income, so the only reliable way to increase profits or reduce deficits is to reduce expenditures. Isn't that what you do at home, as well?

One last time, I will repeat that it is completely unfair to tax one American at a higher rate than another. And to promote such inequality is to promote class warfare and further division of the people. You have indicated your belief that the Dems are "for the little people". However, the truth is, they are just a different group of elitists, than the Republicans.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Allow me to ask you. If your so knowledgeable with the current taxes and what not. Let me ask? You do know the top 2% of the richest people in the US pay over 37% of the nations annual taxes grossed right?

source: www.craigsteiner.us...

source: www.straightdope.com...

source: taxprof.typepad.com...

source: www.taxfoundation.org...

So with this information, how does your argument about taxes in general, suggesting that the rich shouldn't get a break, how does your argument hold any merit?

Are you suggesting those who take the initiative and better themselves should now be reprimanded, and told to pay even more, knowing they pay the most to begin with? How does that sound like the American way? That goes against everything this country was founded upon.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
They claim to be upset with Obama but the White House urged them to make the Middle Class tax cut permanent before the election. The Democrats could have passed Middle Class tax cuts easily before the election.


Uhhh..No ...it's a bit to early for revisionist history...give it a few months and try your BS again.

The GOP pledged to filibuster any effort to let the tax breaks lapse for those making over 250K, 1 Million...whatever...

They did that long before the elections...

www.npr.org...

In order for the Dems to pass the bill before the elctions, they would have had to had a battle similiar to Health Care to overcome the filibuster...how long did that take?

Besides when people like to claim that the Dems had a super-majority, they always include independants as dems, which is innaccurate. Lieberman is an independant and he often sides with GOP.

It couldn't have been done before the elections.

What they could have done is start a battle that would have dragged on for months and months....and they still would have been stopped after the election.

Septemebr..
GOP's 'Pledge' Reveals Divide In Conservatives
www.npr.org...
The plan calls for an extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, [for all income earners]

For the love of God..the GOP now has the majority and Pres. Obama has agreed to extend all Bush era tax cuts, even for the millionaires, and the GOP leadership got what they wanted and agreed to the deal...and the GOP is still not goin to pass it
Demint and others are going to Filibuster until unemployment is cut off.

What makes you think the Dems could have passed it earlier???



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

The difference is (and I suspect you really know this): I quoted Obama on something Obama actually said. On the other hand, throughout this thread, you have only repeated something a Dem has told you a Rep has said. For hearsay to acceptable, it must be corroborated. Otherwise, it is just rhetoric. Without wanting to accept it, you've already proved this to yourself, by not finding any direct evidence any of what you've said about the intentions of Reps.




Um...I quoted Obama from his speech to the nation from Monday. Again you are wrong, while accusing me of being way off base, when in reality, you are. I even asked you if you read or listened to his speech and you gave me that smarmy partisan crap.

You repeatedly get proven wrong in this thread, and all you can do is come back with another lie.

STILL NO ONE WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION: IF YOU WANT TO CUT THE TAXES TO THE TOP 2%, WHO ARE YOU EXPECTING TO PAY? THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT!!

I will keep asking in every post on this thread until you can actually give me an answer.....which you cant, and you know it, because you want the middle class and the poor to pick up the slack.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Allow me to ask you. If your so knowledgeable with the current taxes and what not. Let me ask? You do know the top 2% of the richest people in the US pay over 37% of the nations annual taxes grossed right?

source: www.craigsteiner.us...

source: www.straightdope.com...

source: taxprof.typepad.com...

source: www.taxfoundation.org...

So with this information, how does your argument about taxes in general, suggesting that the rich shouldn't get a break, how does your argument hold any merit?

Are you suggesting those who take the initiative and better themselves should now be reprimanded, and told to pay even more, knowing they pay the most to begin with? How does that sound like the American way? That goes against everything this country was founded upon.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)


Ive answered this question about 4 times in this thread, in different ways...because you just keep repeating the same thing in different ways. If you cant come up with another talking point, how about leaving the discussion to the big boys?

Again, taxes are not a reprimand, or consequence, or a punishment. It is the cost of doing business. Unless you are a big corporation, then you can afford to have lawyers to find ways around the tax code.

How about you answer my question: IF YOU WANT THE TOP 2% TO PAY LESS, WHO ARE YOU EXPECTING TO PAY MORE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE?
edit on 9-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Allow me to ask you. If your so knowledgeable with the current taxes and what not. Let me ask? You do know the top 2% of the richest people in the US pay over 37% of the nations annual taxes grossed right?


And allow me to ask you, you do realize that the top 1% is super rich right? And that for most of the past decade, that 2/3 or all income gains have been to the top 1% right?
That means for every three raises in america in the past 10 years, two went to millionaires. Can you grasp that fact? 2 out of every 3 raises went to the people that least need it, households above 250K/year. The last time disparity was so bad was the 1920s...the Great Depression.

www.cbpp.org...

I see my countrymen jobless and starving while the superrich eat caviar and laugh at how they can manipulate the public to give them EVEN MORE money....and you are helping them.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join