quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57



the 3 percent of americans pay 40 % of the tax.
Under our wonderfull constitution we are all equal in the eyes of the law. We should all pay the same amount.
no one should pay more then their brother or sister............
of the 280,000,000 every one should pay the same amount.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291
Keep grasping at those straws Merc and Coldwarrior.
Maybe one day you'll have something legit to say.
And maybe one day I might grow another ass.
The desperation tactitics of the right continue.

sb,
It requires a mind set and focus such as yours to answer any points of fact with name calling and dismissal without rebuttal in kind. I'm glad I don't have it.

Whether you grow another ass must be material to you. To me, a commitment to spend at a rate generating an annual deficit of $850 Billion for the next ten years is a more worthy subject of discussion.

It seems the only "desperation" involved in on your side of the issue, tying to reconcile to the same numbers I am. Also dissimilar to you. I have no 'side'. I look at numbers both now and projected; create an opinion and take pragmatic action based upon it. Honestly, I'd like to see an alternative analysis, but not one has been forthcoming, even from those usually supporting Administration rhetoric.

All I see is people like you - no argument, a lot of angst, and nothing to discuss but your "ass". Good luck in hopes of growing another one; perhaps you'll find a counter point from within it. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57
the 3 percent of americans pay 40 % of the tax.
Under our wonderfull constitution we are all equal in the eyes of the law. We should all pay the same amount.
no one should pay more then their brother or sister............
of the 280,000,000 every one should pay the same amount.

So the 3% that control the vast majority of wealth in this country should not pay more in taxes?

Someone who is making 20 million dollars a year should pay only 2,500 in taxes the same as someone making 30 thousand a year?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Well, you really got me there - I guess I have to agree you really pointed out how reliable the information published by a source, such as the independent and non-political CBO, is. It can not be argued - They didn't foresee a hole in the ground where two large office buildings used to be. I doubt they put it into consideration this time either. However, that would make their prediction an underestimation, and not support the use of that historical reference as a contention that this prediction is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So the 3% that control the vast majority of wealth in this country should not pay more in taxes?

Someone who is making 20 million dollars a year should pay only 2,500 in taxes the same as someone making 30 thousand a year?

Should they? Absolutely! You want to make it happen, taxing income isn't the way. Get rid of the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax and it may just do the trick.

Meanwhile, just about everyone making $20 Million/year, or I'd dare say, 10% of that amount; can manage quite well, for quite a long time by not making anything, or little "income". I know quite a few people, I don't know their exact income levels, who are prepared, over the next 2 years or longer, to just 'sit it out'. There plan is to wait and see and get to 2 years from now when this spend and tax program will get is first vote of 'confidence' or 'no confidence' expressed by the mid-term election. You can not apply the new tax rate to past income reports, especially at the high end. The high end can manipulate them VERY easily.

Meanwhile, someone WILL have to pay. Tell me, does the guy on the $30k side of your example have the same option? He/she will have to deal with the economic world without the $20 Million dollar guy investing, earning, and spending. He may be the guy that has the coffee/lunch shop the $20 Million guy used to patronize. Instead, the $20 Million now relaxes, sitting in his house, watching the dolphins frolic in the surf.

When President Carter targeted the 'luxury industry'; boats, cars, big ticket items. The people who were hurt were not the ones buying them - they just stopped buying. It was the people selling, making, and servicing the boats, cars, and other big ticket items.

This is the same attempt - good publicity, greatly 'PC'; totally wrong and not likely to achieve the desired result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Well, you really got me there - I guess I have to agree you really pointed out how reliable the information published by a source, such as the independent and non-political CBO, is. It can not be argued - They didn't foresee a hole in the ground where two large office buildings used to be. I doubt they put it into consideration this time either. However, that would make their prediction an underestimation, and not support the use of that historical reference as a contention that this prediction is wrong.

The terrorist attacks were not the cause of their estimate to be wrong.  Bush wiped out any surplus for 2002 with his first tax cut, months before 9/11.

He continued to do that with spending and tax cuts not related to the wars, as he played hide-and-seek to keep war funding from being included in his budget to make the yearly deficits appear less than they actually were.

I'm not suggesting the CBO is partisan, only that it is impossible to make an accurate long-range forecast like that anymore than you can predict the weather accurately beyond a few days, because conditions change.

How can you possibly make an accurate ten-year forecast that potentially could span three different Presidencies?

quote:

I'm not really sure what you are referring to as the same attempt.  Do you mean repealing the Bush tax cuts that gave tax breaks to those who did not need them?

quote:

But you do realize that it is still basically the same progressive tax system we have now, only operating from the other end?

I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think — and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought — that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another. It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right-wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House. Larger Democratic majorities control Congress. A feeling of renewal and hope is in the air. Public opinion polls show a high favorability rating for our new President. And the labor and people’s movement that was so instrumental to the election’s outcome, after a short holiday pause, is off and running.
First, we have to support the passage of the President’s stimulus bill in the Senate. Second, we have to block any Republican efforts to derail the nomination of Hilda Solis, the nominee for the Secretary of Labor. This is the first round in the battle to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will dramatically expand the right to join a union in this country. Some may think this is a struggle of only the labor movement. But nothing could be further from the truth. A bigger labor movement in this country would strengthen the struggle on every front. No one expressed this point better than Martin Luther King toward the end of his life. Third, we have to join others in resisting evictions and foreclosures—not to mention cutbacks and layoffs at the state and city level. Fourth, the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be brought to a close. As former President Lyndon Johnson realized too late, wars of occupation (in his case, Vietnam) can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise. In any case, we have our work cut out for us. But I think we can confidently say that change is coming. And we will build a more perfect union.
Yes, we can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

It is amusing to see the new found worry for the deficit being bantered about by the right.
Running 2 wars while cutting taxes for the rich was okie dokie.
Trying to put the economy back on track and help out the middle class(disappearing?) and the howling begins......Priceless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So the 3% that control the vast majority of wealth in this country should not pay more in taxes?

Someone who is making 20 million dollars a year should pay only 2,500 in taxes the same as someone making 30 thousand a year?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So the 3% that control the vast majority of wealth in this country should not pay more in taxes?

Someone who is making 20 million dollars a year should pay only 2,500 in taxes the same as someone making 30 thousand a year?

Are you really this ignorant? He's talking the same percentage, not dollar amount.

Nobody should have to pay more than 15% of their money to the feds in taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The same attempt to "tax the rich" by President Obama, was made by President Carter by putting forth the 'luxury tax'.

quote:


Immaterial and not addressing the point made. No matter how you slice it, or turn it around; which end can choose not to 'play'? The 'rich' chose not to buy new boats - they managed with what they had or bought used boats. That was the choice they had and they took it. The boat companies that closed and individuals making those boats? Well, their choice was bankruptcy and/or accepting unemployment or not. Who got it worst from that attempt?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...except Merc was talking about a consumption tax. In which case it is feasible that someone on $30 million could pay the same as someone on $30,000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So the 3% that control the vast majority of wealth in this country should not pay more in taxes?

Someone who is making 20 million dollars a year should pay only 2,500 in taxes the same as someone making 30 thousand a year?

Are you really this ignorant? He's talking the same percentage, not dollar amount.

Nobody should have to pay more than 15% of their money to the feds in taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

my bad for not wasting bandwith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack45

BTW the speaker was: Sam Webb, National Chair, Communist Party, USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

What I said about a consumption tax still being a progressive tax was that the wealthy have more discretionary income and spend more. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

You believe we would have gone to war if 9/11 didn't happen? Okay we'll just disagree - no use arguing from 'what if...'; irrelevant to the generally accepted cause of the economic down-turn and subsequent military spending.

quote:

 
It was exactly 8 years from the day that President Obama gave his first speech to Congress that President Bush announced his tax cut in response to the government taking in more money than it needed.

quote:

 
Seven months later, the playing field was changed. The war was a major factor, but not a major as the 40% increase to bureaucracy and spending that came about during President Bush's tenure.

quote:


Concerning the CBO, if you had read the link, it extrapolated the plan proposed by this Administration for the next 10 years. Any change in policy would obviously change the result. However, this is the only 'plan' currently on the table. In two years under a different Congress, I'd stipulate to a different result. Maybe if enough people actually read and project out as did the CBO, it will change.