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.

 

Ben Stein Stuns Fox news about Mitt Romney tax cut

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The debt has skyrocketed because of Bush and all the spending he did.

Obama has increased federal spending very little, in fact at the smallest rate than any other president in modern history.

He is strapped with Bush's spending, and during a recession there wasn't much he could do about it. And you know what makes up a big chunk of that Bush spending? Tax cuts to the rich. The Iraq war didn't help any either.

But you go ahead and keep blaming Obama, even though the numbers don't back up that false rhetoric....numbers guy.




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I hate it, I hate it, i hate it.

The only reason we have an income tax is because we have a debt based monetary system. Let the government print what they need, inflate the economy with that, get rid of fraction reserve banking, and there will be no need for the income tax.

As long as they get you arguing about the wrong thing...they win.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Too bad the screen is not big enough to show what has happeened since 1990.
Speaking of "job creators". A friend once told me "I have never worked for a poor man, it is the rich who gives us all a job to go to".
He seemed kind of surprised when I told him I was greatful for the rich guys who bought all those 5,000,000 burgers at McDonald's last year and kept my daughter working. What most people forget is it may be the rich who own the factory but it is the customer who keeps us all employed.
If I can't buy stuff and feed my family, a lot of other people are soon out of work too. This is why we are in the shape we are in now. So many people lost work, it made a lot of jobs unnecessary.
One thing to remember, the tax code only counts income for workers and profits on businesses. If you don't work, you don't owe taxes. If a business wants to lower it's taxes they can hire more workers or improve the plant. Either way the working man wins and tax reveneus go up in the long run.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Realistically, you can only get money from the people that have it.

I don't know what a fair tax rate is, but, once you get into the category where you're making millions of dollars per year, I think that your rate should be higher then people in the middle class.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by jibeho
 



The nation was not prosperous because of the High Taxes


He wasn't saying High Taxes CAUSED prosperity.

He is saying that Taxes, high or low, have no EFFECT on prosperity.


Then his argument to raise them is moot... I don't put much weight behind Ben and his lack of a historical point of view. Ben has had some other gem statements in the past.


Ben’s analysis has failed consistently in the past. In 2007 he said the economy was not in a recession and the subprime mortgage crisis would “blow over and the people who buy now, in due time, will be glad they did.”

He also dismissed fears of a credit crisis prior to Lehman Brothers going bankrupt, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take over by the federal government, the AIG bail out by the Federal Reserve, and the rest of the destructive pile up following the global economic crisis beginning in September, 2008.

www.infowars.com...

www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
What was the date Stein was on FOX?

How many days has it taken for this to become a thread on ATS?

If it had been a slam against Dems/Libs - - it would have become a thread in seconds.

I find that revealing.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Why the GOP should fear a Romney Presidency

This is just a small excerpt from the link.


If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fourth Republican president in the Reagan regime. That regime is no longer in its glory days. Demographic shifts have weakened the Republican electoral coalition, while Republican politicians have grown increasingly radical and ideological.

At best, Romney will be an affiliated president attempting to revive the Republican brand after it has been badly tarnished by George W. Bush; at worst, he will be a disjunctive president, unable to keep his party's factions together, and presiding over the end of the Reagan coalition.

Throughout his career, Romney has presented himself as a pragmatic, data-driven, hands-on problem-solver. In this respect he resembles our two last disjunctive presidents, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Yet in order to secure his party's nomination, Romney has had to twist his positions to conform to the most radical demands of the Republican base.

Part of Romney's problem is that the Republican Party's policy solutions seem -- at least outside the ranks of the faithful -- increasingly ideological and out of touch.

No matter what conditions the nation faces, the Republican prescription is to lower taxes, increase defense spending, and weaken the social safety net. These ideas may have made sense in the 1980s. But by 2012, they seem as irrelevant as the Democratic Party's arguments must have seemed to many Americans in 1979.

edit on 26-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Realistically, you can only get money from the people that have it.

I don't know what a fair tax rate is, but, once you get into the category where you're making millions of dollars per year, I think that your rate should be higher then people in the middle class.



Yep!

And despite the attempts at twisting and excuses - - - - that's pretty much what Ben Stein was saying.

We need money - - the rich have money - - tax them.

His message is not complicated.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



Then his argument to raise them is moot


His argument to raise them was to balance the budget.

The argument from Fox and Friends was that it will hurt the economy, Ben's counter argument was to point out that taxes, low or high, have little effect on the prosperity of the economy, thus destroying their argument.

This shouldn't be hard to understand, his argument is very straight forward and he completely countered the false argument that Fox and Republicans try use.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

I do agree.. Looking at growth is important and of course, the White House package for a fiscal year budget is a big one. The chart showing their present numbers and how they foresee it changing over the next 10 years is also in there.



That is, of course, produced by Obama's own people so it's probably too optimistic just as some by the right are too far the other way.

Here is that whole area of the package if you want to lose an afternoon in it.

Economic Assumptions and Summary Breakdown of 2013fy Budget

If the last 4 years are good for folks, vote for Obama... We have 4 more of it based on the better estimates. Meanwhile that national debt hole is deeper and more impossible to get out of...over a half a trillion a year....for 10+ years out.

Our Debt will also be above GDP for Growth ratio and climbing into the projcted future.

GDP -> Debt Ratio with U.S. vs. China Economic Numbers

China wasn't the point, but it makes for an interesting site bit of data in the chart showing the visual for the U.S. ratio.

Now I don't know how anyone can spin that as anything but bad. I'd have respected Obama if he'd admited it was going badly and proposed how a different course or at least serious change in his course might improve things. Honestly, it wouldn't have changed my vote, but I'm in the category where nothing would have this cycle. It would have been a decent way to handle it, anyway.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor corrections.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Fat chance Ben will ever see the inside of a FOX studio again. He'll likely have to surrender his Conservative group pass key as well. Poor Ben.


No, as Ben has been stating this same thing for many many years.

That is the reason why Fox brings him on. He is a person that disagrees slightly from the GOP thought.

If you don't believe me, just go look up any of his interviews from the last 3 years on Fox.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


And if you elect Romney that debt will become even greater and all the country (except for the extremely wealthy) might just collapse under the strain of it. This is what Ben Stein is predicting, a historic depression if we do not return to the pre-Reagan tax codes.When the poor are climbing the mansion fences and smashing down the doors, waiting for them en mass is when the wealthy may decide they did NOT do the right thing and champion America when America needed them. And that would be a shame because in most cases it was America and everyday Americans that made them rich in the first place.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Yes, it is very sad when Palin and Trump are viewed by the Republican base as the smart ones.

And Colin Powell and Ben Stein are viewed as "traitors".


The Republican party and effectively shoved out all the intelligent people and replaced them with chest thumping, hype people. So sad.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Well on the first point, Ben Stein seems to be under the impression there is *ANY* way this story ends well. There is no projection I've seen using actual numbers one can source that shows anything but the debt numbers climbing exponentially. Neither man changes that. Even Clintons years of budget surplus on an annual basis saw the national debt continuing to climb.

The jump from a half a billion a year (which the public screamed about) to deficits well over a trillion a year for 4 years straight now sealed the deal on how this ends, IMO. As someone figured out on my budget thread, we'd need surpluses every year with NO fail of 500-750 billion to get this under control. Even those numbers? Don't do it in my lifetime. My son would see it at 750 billion surpluses, but I never would see the 0 point reached.


In the long term, given the realities? A few others have made a good point for what DOES make a different. Even if only a small one. Romney will be a 1st term President trying very hard to be a 2 term President. Obama will be a lame duck with little qualms about just doing what he wants by executive order when necessary. In these coming years of trouble.

I know which one I feel better about. I like the one still trying to impress me for another vote. Not the one who has no reason left to care what we think or like.

(By the way....All those numbers above were BEFORE QE-3 which is 40 Billion a month. 480 Billion a year. Add another Half a trillion as long as they have that running for annual red
)
edit on 26-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

He can say what he wants, but he brings up hte period 1943-1971 and there were also far fewer entitlements back then AND less regulations on US companies. I think some of that tax money probably went to paying off any debts that were accumulated during world war II and the cold war and to pay for housing and medical for veterans returning from war. But after 1971 it all went to hell. We kept increasing the size of government and adding entitlements and now we just can't pay for it. We were more responsible between 1943-1971, so comparing the two sets of data is meaningless.

I think our country hasn't met the demands, especially in education. Our kids are fat and dumb; grow up on xbox and fruit loops. This is as much a result of teenage apathy extending into adulthood as it's a failure of parents to discipline their children. Too many jobs are going overseas because government has enacted too many regulations and has made doing business in america a hostile venture. I don't see this trend reversing. We're doomed. This is the way of rome. Greed and indulgence is killing us.

Too much hatred for the things that made this country great. Too much denial. I heard you can't even use the word "fat" in the UK to describe someone overweight. Same disease. We can't use the word "loser" to describe somebody that's clearly losing. We can't call a duck a duck. Instead we gotta give them handouts and tell em they're a winner and pat em on the back reassuringly.
edit on 26-10-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
its not high or low taxes, its not over spending or not spending enough. its the damn fiat money system we have.

the fiat system we have is the problem. fractional reserve banking creates money from debt making it impossible to ever pay that debt off even if you taxed and cut everything.

If i had 2 unique rocks and you wanted to borrow these 2 rocks... but only on the condition that you pay me back those 2 rocks + another unique rock that doesn't exist. how do you pay something back that doesn't exist yet? that's the fiat money system we have - Built on debt. taxing or cutting spending would not solve the problem.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Nope! With all do respect to Ben Stein, and I think he is a brilliant man. However, I am not buying his idea to raise taxes on the rich, because the government has found themselves in a pinch. They have done it before, and we keep ending up in situations like we have now with the debt getting larger. They need to get themselves out of it through whatever it is they do. Clever accounting tricks, cuts, austerity measures, whatever? Lets say the taxes where raised on the wealthy, and I will even go so far as having the long-arm of the government seizing everything from them. It would still not bring the government into the green. We are talking about an annual debt of over 16 trillion dollars, and that is not including the insolvent entitlement programs like SS and Medicade. Not billions, but trillions with a capital "T!"

Spend what ever they want, and at the moment trouble arises? They will ring the necks of the rich, and when there is no meat left on their bones? Lets ring the necks of the middle-class, and onward down the line. It needs to stop! Why should anyone wear a scarlet letter for being prosperous, thrifty, and mindful of their expenses, and while the government has not? It is not right! That is how I see this thing about taxing a particular group. The government takes in plenty already, and now they want more? Oh, and just one group is supposed to take it on the chin? I am sorry, but when we give them an inch they will take a mile! That is the nature of the beast, and it is time people start realizing that. It goes far beyond partisan politics, rich or poor, and any of the misnomers conjured up in our failed politician's head. They have much to answer, because they control the faucet.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Yep tax em. Them filthy rats. They worked hard to earn their money and pulled the right levers and used their brains and none of that matters because they're the scum of the earth.

Lets reward them by taking their money away. This'll send a message to others who want to be rich: We'll take your money and make you our slave. That's a good way to boost the economy, eh?

May as well stay poor. And get entitlements. And play the victim card. Then we'll be a nation of victims and no jobs because nobody went to school and worked hard to be rich(er).

The way I look at it is we should reward wealthy people. They're the best of the best, generally. They work hard and they got brains. Those're things we want to encourage, not demean.

I think there's some jealousy and also some bigotry going on. Not everybody is rich precisely because it's not easy. And a great number of people are prejudiced against the rich for this reason. They don't like seeing that somebody else did better. So they have to distort reality in their favor.
edit on 26-10-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
reply to post by jibeho
 



Then his argument to raise them is moot


His argument to raise them was to balance the budget.

The argument from Fox and Friends was that it will hurt the economy, Ben's counter argument was to point out that taxes, low or high, have little effect on the prosperity of the economy, thus destroying their argument.

This shouldn't be hard to understand, his argument is very straight forward and he completely countered the false argument that Fox and Republicans try use.


you can't balance a budget by raising taxes..... Remember Ben's comments from 2010 when he considered raising taxes to be a punishment. He's been all over the map over the past years on the issue of tax increases.


CAVUTO: The way Ben Stein sees it there is no economic benefit to raising taxes on the upper income in this economy. So that leads to draw only one conclusion that he is being punished. He simply wants to know why. Ben, it is going to happen one way or the other.

BEN STEIN, ECONOMIST: Well, look, here's the thing. There's no well-known economic theory that says you should raise taxes even upon well-to-do people in a recession. There may be such a theory but it is cult secret theory known only to a few people. There has to be some reason other than that, other than benefiting the economy generally that they're doing it.

I can only assume (INAUDIBLE) and hatred against well to do, successful people on the part of Mr. Obama but I don't understand what sense it makes or why I'm being punished aside from envy. By the way, at rate which I spend money I soon will not be upper income taxpayer. That will be the end of that.


Read more: www.foxbusiness.com...

So is our economy now solid enough to justify what Ben is suggesting? I think not... It wasn't solid enough in 2010 either and if anything will be getting worse if things don't change.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


I actually gained a bit of respect for Ben with this change of position.

It won't make up for that horrible creationism movie that he did but it's common sense.

If the filthy, stinking rich don't like paying taxes, then they shouldn't live in America.




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join