"GOP: No tax hikes -- except for the poor"

Originally posted by wardk28
reply to post by Flatfish

 

I was hoping the ones that questioned this would actually check for yourselves but here is the link. Its common sense really, the more people employed= more income tax revenue.
www.washingtontimes.com...

Sure, more people working = more people paying more taxes.
Now are you really trying to argue that Bush's tax cuts put more people to work?

Next thing you know, they will be saying that Democrats want to create more social services, so that poor people don't have to starve.

I mean the GOP, not caring for poor people?

That's brand new information!

If people only knew the real facts, no spin, then they'd clean DC out and start totally fresh.

Ban Political Parties, and make Congress a lot like jury duty.

One term, no election.

You just get a letter in the mail. 'You are the state senator this year'.

Watch corruption virtually disappear.

I can't even begin to tell you how far off base you are. I agree... the Republicans (just like their evil twins--the democrats) are out of control and wholly interested in accommodating their rich banker friends. This is a major reason I don't support EITHER party. Unfortunately...many "tea party" people have been co-opted by republicans.

The true tea partiers, though--the ones who believe in the constitution and individual liberty--want to see taxes as low as possible for ALL people. We want to manage our country and handle our affairs through shrinking our expenses, shrinking the size of government, holding people accountable for their own situations, and letting capitalism work.

Is summary: you are a moron.

reply to post by inforeal


You are so off base here it isn't even funny.

The "rich" are the only ones paying any taxes! Having everyone else chip in and do their part in some small way has nothing to do with saving the "rich".

The rich are the only ones paying taxes?!

I must be secretly wealthy then.

Fail.

Another piece of Democrat patty propaganda from the AP. Why am I not surprised the people of ATS ate it up like good lemmings?

hosted.ap.org...

AP's Babington Rolls Out Obama and Dems' Talking Points on Extending Payroll Tax Cut

Finally, if you want to see hypocrisy, one need go no further than the headline of Babington's outburst: "GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block." [B]How many times did an AP headline call "repealing the Bush tax cuts" a "tax increase" when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat was advocating their repeal? The educated guess here is darned near never. But when this AP headline writer had a chance to pin a tax increase on conservatives or Republicans, he or she didn't hesitate to let it rip.[/B]

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by Tangled4u
Thank God when Ron Paul get's elected he will take away all taxes because it's unconstitutional.

Can't wait for that day.

How is something 'unconstitutional' when it is clearly legalized and appropriated to the federal government within the Constitution? That is like saying "free speech is unconstitutional" even though it is clearly stated freedom of speech is a right in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

You cannot just call something unconstitutional if you do not like it, just calling it so does not make it true.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Source

Notice this word... "AMENDMENT" meaning it was added and not part of the original United States Constitution. This is how they have been able to take away our rights bit by tiny bit. All you need is a Brainy Smurf to find a loop hole, or in this case add an AMENDMENT to an already existing document that has been trampled on over and over again. So much as to we forgot what we wanted in the first place, and now has come the time people are MAD!

What did you expect? This is what usually happens when you take a good idea and make changes to benefit only those that write the checks, and forget about your "little people" that punch in and out every darn day keeping your cash cow chewing it's fodder.

Originally posted by BakaKing
reply to post by Sunlionspirit

 

I'm one of the poor, always have been and barring some great stroke of

luck, always will be. Because of where I grew up most of the people I

know are poor (small town). Hell, with the exception of the business

owners I'd say damn near everyone is poor to middle class mostly in

the $20,000-40,000 range. Although there are a few that make more

(local business owners mostly) but they make their money by not paying

their workers anything but minimum wage or $1 over it. They're not

alone, most companies won't pay a decent liveable wage anymore. They

will pay you between $8-12 per hour for your services whether that's

driving a forklift, running a combine, working an assembly line,

machining, working as a cashier, soddering circut boards or working in

a office. It pretty much seems if you aren't a proffesional you have

a hard time breaking the $15 hour mark.
This is where I think most of our problems lie. Most of the

people I know have jobs similar to those mentioned above and the thing

every one of them has in common? They can't make ends meet on their

own and are all on some form of government assistance or another (Wick

& foodstamps mostly). These people are expected to live and raise

their families on this paltry amount, how? How do you support a kid

with a wage like that let alone send them to college? You don't. You

need assistance and most of the time that comes from family, friends,

or the government (usually all 3).
The working mans salary is for the most part a joke. You pay

us peanuts and then make us feel bad when we can't pay for all our

bills and need to go on some sort of government assistance. We pray

we don't have to go to the doctor since most of the medical plans

offered are expensive jokes that hardly cover anything but since your

company offered you a plan (a high priced POS usually) you can't get

on the good "state plans" medical care. I was on the "state plan" as

a child (father died when I was a young leaving my mom to raise 4 kids

by herself) and it was a great plan. Don't be fooled into thinking

the government can't do healthcare well. It can and in many states

does.
The truth of the matter is, if the average worker had a decent

wage there wouldn't be such a need for so many government "handouts".

I'm not advocating that regular blue collar guys should get the same

wage as a proffesional but is enough to live on asking too much.

ok, there you got it - there you have it ....
what to do ???
first learn a lot about it !! learn learn learn !! EDUCATION as most as possible !!!
thanks to internet and it's fantastic topics also !!!!!
second, please I know democrats are not angels, but have some more trust / faith on them then you should have on liberals !!
why should you trust the neo-liberal ones that consider you as puppets, as fools, as stupid working people with no idea about their manipulation ????
think about it, speak about it, about neo-capitalism, about Monsanto, about oil-spill and neo-capitalist greed and lack of security for us, the people !!! all profit for them, all misery for us ??? you agree ?????

think twice but act always once you understood the game !!!

Originally posted by Gannicus
Another piece of Democrat patty propaganda from the AP. Why am I not surprised the people of ATS ate it up like good lemmings?

Because it is true and nothing in your post actually disputes that. It is just one writer getting upset about word choice. The facts are all there. Republicans want that tax increase on the middle class and working poor to go through. Try disputing the facts instead of responding to word choices.

reply to post by inforeal



its sad that one of the first comments on here are that both r and d tax us too much but at LEAST we get to see something for it with democrats......

it is extremely sad and discouraging to read that. not to mention that the only arguement to vote democrat is they screw us less that republicans.

what people don't see is there is no choice just the image that their is a choice. both partys are for the rich by the rich.

the worst part is they all support what they publicly denounce.

it all a dog and pony show folks and you all eat it up.

the t party is only hear is misdirection. the audience was getting tired of the show so they had to add a new character to the mix.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by neo96

 

You are a huge partisan shill so I will address this directly.

I love how anyone who trashes Republicans here is normal, but anyone who questions that is a "partisan shill". Its like the Democrat party has set up shop here at ATS. Of course, shilling for Democrats isn't partisan at all.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by inforeal

 

You are so off base here it isn't even funny.

The "rich" are the only ones paying any taxes!

I am far from rich and I pay all kinds of taxes on a daily basis.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Wow, so to Conservatives it's "class warfare" when we increase taxes on the rich, but it's completely legitimate to take money away from those receiving benefits from the government, at least according to Senator Dan Coats:

"Those who are not paying any taxes but are receiving benefits from the government because of their income status— there ought to be a reduction from the benefit they receive," Coats said. "Even if it's 10 bucks, or 15 bucks, we [need to say we] have deducted for your participation in helping to support our country's needs."

Yeah, the country needs your help, poor people! It's about damn time the poor people chipped in and helped the country out, we need their money!--(says rich people with millions of dollars collecting dust in a bank who call the idea of using their money to help the country out "class warfare").

edit on 22-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Hate quoting so much text but I guess it's relevant to my response ( sorry mods, in advanced of getting slapped for excessive quotes )

I am not really a republican or a democrat, I see myself as split down the middle most times and I can certainly see the argument from both perspectives. When I read his quote my first thought was not take money from the poor to help America so much as reduce benefits from those not contributing to the system in order to keep the system available for those who HAVE contributed.

In other words.. I am a 33 year old male who has been working a full time job for going on 14 years now, I have been forced to contribute to a system, which mind you is not an entitlement system, that word is false.. it's a forced savings plan.. it's money I contributed for my retirement and/or medical emergency use in the future except I had no option but to contribute.. nevertheless.. The way things are going now, that won't exist when I'm a senior.

The social security system is heavily abused at the moment, both by Government who dips into those funds for military purposes, and by regular every day people who ride the system who could be gainfully employed. Yes there are MANY people in this country who use the system when they don't NEED the system.. I have a family member who is fully capable of working, in fact he works under the table doing electronics repair and landscaping.. tax free... then he lives with his mom and collects his social security check, buys xbox games and pizza then repeats the process.. He can afford to buy more "junk" than I can because he has no bills and gets free income and I've been full time and legit my entire working life.. in my 33 years of life, I've never known him to have one legit job.. There are MANY of him in this world..

Reducing the benefits of those receiving them, who genuinely need them, I don't support.. but what I do support is a stricter system of determining who actually gets them in the first place.. if more of those freeloading the system could be identified and removed from it all together, that alone would probably be a big help.. You eliminate one freeloader making $450.00/mo doing nothing, who's capable of work.. you save 30 people who really need it from a reduced benefit. ( assuming they planned to take $15.00 from everyone ) .. you'll also reduce the load on the system overall.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Um... this is Social Security payroll tax, which is not the same as income tax. Further, how do those who support the further extending of this payroll tax cut propose that Social Security stays afloat if the amount going into the coffers continues being roughly 17% lower than it was back when Social Security was already bleeding its funding dry?

Further, if we have 46% of wage earners not paying any payroll tax right now under this Obama initiative... I guess that means myself and the other 54% of wage earners are supposed to just keep paying for them? BULLPIES! Not freaking having it anymore. Either pay the fare like the rest of us continue to do, or get off the bus and walk for awhile. Thank you Jon Huntsman et al. for actually giving a flip about folks like me who are by no means "rich" but who make too much money to be considered lower middle class. Seems like my group is the one that consistantly falls through the cracks, even though we're the ones who have been holding this damn economy together, despite the efforts from the left to rip it apart through assbrained spending sprees and the efforts from the right to rip it apart through assbrained program cuts to important issues like our infrastructure.

quote " Seems like my group is the one that consistantly falls through the cracks, even though we're the ones who have been holding this damn economy together, despite the efforts from the left to rip it apart through assbrained spending sprees and the efforts from the right to rip it apart through assbrained program cuts to important issues like our infrastructure. "

yes man, of course, because you always want to be like them, the super-rich, the super macho stupid ourang-outangs .... you think they will respect you ??? come on, middle class is also victim of this neo-capitalist economy and those corporations that monopolise commercial economy .... they want you dead for their profit man !!! you think they did love you ??? no way ! so what ? fight against this neo-liberalism and their corporations

What really amazes me is that while people are pointing fingers at one party or another, the worst and most hated tax of all remains largely unnoticed - property tax. This system of taxation is the most corrupt and the laws are rigged against property owners in nearly every state in the U.S. Property taxes are going up despite a crashed real estate market and they will go higher as state revenue continues to decrease. Think they won't take your home? They can and will.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Mishmashum

 

assumptions are the mother of all blank ups

guess people never heard of always on internet also guess they dont bother to read the time and date stamps on here either.

ATS does not show us whether or not your internet connection is on. ATS only shows if you have been active on ATS in the last 15 minutes so when we see you logged into ATS and posting all day and all night, yeah we know you are here all day and all night. Most of us have always on internet connections these days but ATS does not show me logged in 24/7 just because my internet connection is on. I have to actually come here and do things. How is that for an assumption?

It is hard to breathe since the ignorance on this thread is so palpable. I don't even know where to start. Lets start with the incorrect assertion that the Bush Tax Cuts were only for the rich. They were for everyone that paid income taxes so I can see how the OP might think those were the rich as year by year we enlist more and more people in to the welfare state.

The social security tax was temporarily reduced by 2% during the recession as a token effort to 'help' people. The first point being that the government felt a 2% reduction in a withholding tax would 'help'. It meant instead of them stealing every $7 out of $100, they only stole $5. If anyone can outline how this tax reduction helped please educate us.

It did have one effect readily known which was any reduction in social security taxes collected had a direct impact on our ability to cover social security insurance payments - a program that was already insolvent and the primary expense by the Federal government leading to massive deficits and debt. Now I suppose for the 'poor' on this thread the deficits, debts, and long term stability of the thing you use to pay bills and buy 'stuff' does not matter - but it should.

In December 2010, the AARP said this about the temporary reduction:

“While no one is talking about extending the Social Security payroll tax reduction beyond one year, AARP will oppose any efforts to make this holiday permanent.

“As outlined in the current package, the short-term payroll tax reduction is temporary, and the Social Security Actuary agrees that there is no negative impact on the Social Security Trust Fund from this temporary reduction. Employees will have credit towards their benefits for their work, and people in Social Security should be confident that their hard-earned benefits will be there for them when they need them.

They did their best to support Obama. Had a GOP President done this they would have called for his head on a stick. Still they wanted people to know this has to be a 1 year thing and not a made permanent or their members wouldn't be able to live off present day workers.

The key point is - 'I don't work for you.' You don't pay income taxes and now you don't want to pay in to social security but you want all of the benefits which means you are a leech wanting to live off the rest of us. Get an education, get a job and stop with the partisan garbage. If the American electorate has as much brain power as the Obama shills on this thread then we're doomed.

Democrat/republican they all tax us. Neither gives us anything to really show for it. Trickle down economics works but globalization and the fact that most major corps have to answer to the shareholder(who demands highest possible profit/ lowest costs) makes that money trickle down to foreign countries where their office/ factory is located. Trickle down and globalization don't mix. And regardless of the party in charge, we lose. (we as in average Americans.

I propose this question. Not saying the uber wealthy shouldn’t be taxed more, but what about people in the 75,000 to 250,000 range? When we start there, where to next? And when we start to punish success in this nation, which we have been doing for the last 30 years, what happens with the motivation in this country to succeed. It slowly dies. Much like it has been. They you start to see an economy like we have today. What happens when you start to tax the corporations and business? They pass that on to the consumer, or the product. 90% of all of these taxes and business taxes start on one aisle of the political spectrum, the left. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth debating with.

editby]edit on 23-8-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)