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

Maybe I missed the post, maybe no-one knows, but WHAT republicans are stated as going for this? What republicans (is there a list?) are on record as saying that they are for this.
Names.
I would like names please.
Anyone?
Beuller?
Ferris Beuller?

The rich are taxed. In fact they pay more taxes than anyone.

www.taxfoundation.org...
www.taxfoundation.org...

The IRS recently released preliminary data for 2008 which showed that taxpayers earning less than $100,000 collectively earned roughly half the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) that year, but paid 25 percent of the income taxes. Meanwhile, taxpayers earning more than $250,000 paid close to half (46 percent) of the income taxes collected while they earned roughly a quarter of the total AGI.

Besides, this is not a tax. Calling it a tax is Democrat party/MSM spin. I'm surprised so many here fall for it, considering they scoffed at the exact same spin when Republicans were dishing it out.

reply to post by inforeal


ah, Salon.

And you trust them? That's like trusting Fox News.

Story here in the paper the other day unemployment is 14% and the local factories can't find workers for 15$ an hour. People refuse to be drug tested or won't get up in the morning. Finally started advertising in Chicago and people are moving here for work because the locals won't work.

reply to post by ISHAMAGI


Well no, they don't give you something for it.

Both will tax you. But one throws it away on people who will never use it, and the other throws it away on people that will never use it. Try to guess which one is which, if you catch what I'm saying.

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
Notice this word... "AMENDMENT" meaning it was added and not part of the original United States Constitution.

So...you don't like amendments then? There are others though, such as the right to bear arms, free press, equality, etc...
The constitution with no amendment is pretty weak and would pave the way for a wonderful democracy, or a totalitarian dictator..amendments are good things

add: (forgot the main point)
Anyhow, if you read the constitution, section 7 and 8 deal with taxes and such...very loose wording

Section. 7.All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
(etc etc etc)
No amendment here..just pure constitution...removal of taxes and forbidding government from taxing = very unconstitutional...sorry, but if Ron Paul is suggesting taxes are somehow unconstitutional, he is retarded.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by inforeal

 

ah, Salon.

And you trust them? That's like trusting Fox News.

Didn't you know propaganda and lies is A-OK, as long as its a means toward fulfilling a Democrat party agenda.

So tired of hearing this "trickle down" myth brainwashing being spouted in this thread. Trickle down economics has been PROVEN not to work as advertised. The gap between the rich and poor has only INCREASED since its inception and unemployment sure as hell isn't gone after years and years of catering to the rich. Rich people are not some altruistic heros who want to save the poor people. When 99% of rich people get more money what do they do? They hoard it or use it make more money with personal investments (stocks, etc). They don't just all go use it to go help the little guy and hire people and whatever other nonsense trickle down idiots propose.

Companies hire people, not rich people, a company can be just as able to hire new people if their profits aren't thrust 95% into the hands of the CEOs/owners (rather than into hiring more people.. for example just think of how many low wage people you can hire if that asshole ceo wasn't getting his multimillion dollar bonus every year on top of all the other money/stock incentive he gets,, thats the wages of like dozens of new grunt workers..) like they are now or if those CEOs/owners etc are taxed more and their personal wealth decreases slightly. Its been statistically proven trickle down economics doesn't work as claimed, go do the research and stop making bull# claims.

Also, how the hell can all the rich sympathizers in this thread expect people who can barely even SURVIVE, you can barely put food on the table making minimum/low wages in this modern world forget about living comfortably, to pay taxes or more taxes...? If the rich are taxed more it doesn't effect their quality of life AT ALL. They will still ride around in their ferraris, live in lavish mansions, eat like kings etc, meanwhile taxing the poor can literally mean the difference between having a safe roof over your head or not or feeding your kids properly or not. Disgusting.

Excuse me, but does anyone have the names of the GOP members that are voting for this? What are the members names? Who in the GOP said/is saying this?

reply to post by darkest4


I like how the GOP doesn't call the rich the rich anymore, they now are known as the "job creators". funny stuff there really.

Yes, the rich are job creators...you can be their butler, maid, or driver...


Companys are the ones that "create" jobs...and the only job that is created is jobs that are necessary, driven by commerce, and commerce is driven by middle class people spending their money on jeans and ice cream and televisions...there is no happy job company that makes jobs when they are feeling rich...and all companys will cut away any job not absolutely necessary to meet demands.

Its complete absurdity what they are trying to pass off as factual.

I see such rampant dishonesty...they need to man up and say what the truth is. The hoarders of society do not want to pay any more because...they are hoarders and they did not get their stuff illegally. They know they aren't helping anything in society, but its their right to hoard to begin with...this job creator language just makes them look like total liars along with being hoarding disaster cases

We are told by FOX News that we must not tax the rich because they won't hire any new employees if they have to pay more tax. This was the line used back several months ago when the Bush tax cuts on the rich was set to expire. Obama agreed to extend their tax cuts. So, how many jobs have been produced since then??? anyone... anyone...

If the rich have less tax they have more cash. More cash to buy the 120 foot yacht instead of the 90 foot yacht...Oh and that yacht will be manufactured in Brazil, by the way. Thanks America. Thanks congress. Thanks MSM

The wealthy salivate at the thought of cutting those nasty "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare. IE: throw granny off the cliff syndrome. I was forced to pay into those "programs" for fifty years and now that I am able to claim my pittyful allowance I am considered a welfare whore and the cause of all the ills of mankind. BS!


Hell, if we just eliminate those "entitlements" we might be able to afford a couple more wars!

Originally posted by beezzer
Excuse me, but does anyone have the names of the GOP members that are voting for this? What are the members names? Who in the GOP said/is saying this?

In an Associated Press report on Monday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) acknowledged it would be a "net positive" to let workers keep the specific tax break. But because the payroll tax isn't being made permanent -- and because its benefits are not being felt by employers as much as employees -- the GOP seems poised to oppose an extension.

I guess start there, then either wait for the voting to occur for a proper list of names.
I see this as just another threat however...extend the bush tax cuts, or we will make a fuss about the income tax break for the middle class...looking for things to oppose obama not extending it sort of thing.

So...ya...your list may be out eventually, but you can start with Jeb whom seems to be heading up this movement.

Personally, I think its a great idea for the Reps to take this stance...I fully encourage them to stick to their guns united and hell, use it as their platform going into the 2012 election cycle. I can't see any possible backlash that will occur..nope, this will certainly get them the recognition they deserve.

Originally posted by romanmel
We are told by FOX News that we must not tax the rich because they won't hire any new employees if they have to pay more tax. This was the line used back several months ago when the Bush tax cuts on the rich was set to expire. Obama agreed to extend their tax cuts. So, how many jobs have been produced since then???

anyone...

anyone...

Well, Jobs have been created...just over in China...gotta think globally as hedge fund style economics is a bit bigger than some trivial new country on the edge of the western world.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Not only do they only create the jobs that are necessary, but they also do it in the cheapest way possible, which often means outsourcing or creating new jobs but in more "tax friendly environments". As long as it maximizes profit. See the stock market? The economy is recovering! If that ruins your life, that's your problem. We saved an American company that's based in India, produces their product in China, and sells it here. That last part is sarcasm and hyperbole but you guys get what I'm saying right. Job creation will always be done cheaply. No living wage, no retirement and expensive health plan that only covers the minimum.

Originally posted by romanmel
We are told by FOX News that we must not tax the rich because they won't hire any new employees if they have to pay more tax...

Can someone please define what rich is because its more and more being used to indicate someone that has a job and earns a living.

It seems to me the scale is a wee bit skewed as it includes anyone making $125,000 a year through $1,000,000 through the Tiger Woods $62,000,000 to the Wall Street tycoon salaries of $1,000,000,000.

That scale would look something like this:

[Poor][MiddleClass][Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich Rich]

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by romanmel
We are told by FOX News that we must not tax the rich because they won't hire any new employees if they have to pay more tax. This was the line used back several months ago when the Bush tax cuts on the rich was set to expire. Obama agreed to extend their tax cuts. So, how many jobs have been produced since then???

anyone...

anyone...

Well, Jobs have been created...just over in China...gotta think globally as hedge fund style economics is a bit bigger than some trivial new country on the edge of the western world.

Thanks for the info...

Guess I'll have to tell my grandson he needs to move to China to get a job at the standard eightty cents an hour rate. Jobs are available. You just have to be willing to move.

reply to post by beezzer

Maybe I missed the post, maybe no-one knows, but WHAT republicans are stated as going for this? What republicans (is there a list?) are on record as saying that they are for this.
Names.
I would like names please.
Anyone?
Beuller?
Ferris Beuller?

Actually yes, Republican Howard F. Beuller is on board.

Bachmann:

"Part of the problem is today, only 53 percent pay any federal income tax at all; 47 percent pay nothing," said Bachmann. "We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it's a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit."

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."

"Conservatives" and "they" (no specific names...):

Conservatives have an argument: You can't, and shouldn't, balance the budget and pay for entitlements by continually raising taxes on the rich. Doing so, they say, is "class warfare." At the same time, however, they must contend with persistent support for the welfare state.

reply to post by Gannicus


At least NBC adds some truth in their propaganda. There are some agencies, on both sides, that just plain lie.

I take those quotes right on the title. It's opinion, not fact.

reply to post by TupacShakur


hmm. I may be wrong, but I believe I heard this some point a day ago over the radio. I don't exactly trust Salon, so I didn't really pay attention to the article. Forgive me, but correct me if I am wrong.

Are they trying to remove tax reductions for the half of the country that avoid it?

If so, does income tax go to the government or the federal reserve?

How would making the income tax increased in collection matter for the government, if it goes to the federal reserve, and if it does go to the government, why do they even bother using tax cuts? Why not simply fairly tax all, and the only tax cuts come when your kids get As or you do something like use green tech. I can't see much beyond that for its usage. Never much understood why groups can avoid such taxes nor why donations should be deductible.

reply to post by inforeal

I believe this story is PURE BOVINE EXCREMENT ! No party is stupid enough to tax the "poor". What would they get? An I.O.U.? I can barely buy food!