1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

More Republican lies...Taxes

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Popeye, Mar 17, 2009.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    The Republicans have been sniveling about Obama's proposal to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2011...from 35% to 39.6%...says it makes him a socialist.

    They're either forgetting history or purposely lying about it, because check out what the rate was under Reagan and Nixon for those same wealthy Americans. It's about time they payed their fair share...like they did in the past.

    [​IMG]


    http://pol.moveon.org/fax/oneoffs/index_863.html?cp_id=863&tg=FSNC_2&id=15745-5228739-JrQFodx&t=2
     
  2. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    Your graph still shows that Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Cinton and Obama raised taxes while Nixon and Reagan lowered them.

    The fact that Reagan did not lower as low as Obama raised them to is more likely a function of how much of a change they were able to make. Reagan probably would have lowered them more if he could have and Obama will raise them more if he gets the chance.

    At the rate that the New American Tea Parties are gaining popularity he stands a chance of watering the tree of liberty in which case he will not get that chance. Personally I hope it does not go that far.
     
  3. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    473
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Is Obama being called a "socialist" because he wants to lower taxes for the middle class, while raising them for the rich, or is it because of his advocacy of pouring billions into private enterprise in order to "bail them out" of their financial problems?

    If the government takes over banks, tries to run the auto industry, has a controlling interest in major corporations, then the title "socialist" is apt. A restructuring of the income tax is not socialism.
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    What is it with all this "fair share" crap people keep talking about. The top 1% of wage earners pay around 33% of all federal income tax. The top 5% pay over 50%.

    So, with a population of around 306,028,340 in the United States, a little over 3,000,000 of those people pay a third of the tax. 15,000,000 or so of those people pay over half.

    If anyone needs to pay there "fair share" it is you.
     
  5. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, he is a socialist because of his total agenda.

    socialized banks, socialized health care - redistribution of wealth. That's why he's being called a socialist. Heck, his Climat Czar is part of a socialist party.

    As far as repealing the tax cuts. It's plainly a bad Idea. If he had a spine, which I don't think he does, Obama would start trying to get the illegal immigrant situation under control. Quit paying for all of them in our schools, prisons, hospitals, and doctors offices. We would have no problem with our budgets then.

    Simple, get rid of the illegals, and half of the problems go away.
     
  6. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    This one takes the cake.

    Poor little popeye supplies a graph showing that Reagan lowered income tax rates from 70% to 50% and then to 33%. Quietly leaving out Clinton's tax increase to 39%, he then implies that Bush's tax rate cut to 35%, and Obama's proposed increase back to 39%, are lower than Reagan's.

    This poor, confused individual proceeds to build on his laughable falsehood, contradicted by his own data, the idea that since Obama's rate will be "lower" than Reagan's, it's not right to criticize him. He throws into the mess, a strange announcement that someone said that a tax increase means that Obama is a socialist. Of course, he's careful to avoid naming names... something he can't do, since no one said it.

    It's not often you see someone dig himself into so deep a hole, so quickly, with so little actual fact at hand. But little popeye manages this feat nicely.

    The funniest part comes when little popeye tries to claim that others are snivelling, and that they are the ones "either forgetting history or purposely lying about it".

    Quite a string of accomplishments for someone who can't even spell "paid".

    :D
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The following is from dictionary.com:

    Notice "equitable distribution of property".

    The people in government are attempting to install socialistic principals through the tax code. This will largely fail, just as it did in 30s under the New Deal, and the any other time it's been tried.

    Which leads to this quote from Marx:
    I believe this is the current state of America as we speak. The implementation of collectivist principles, like mandated equal minority ownership of homes, has failed. But instead of realizing our folly, we have assumed more socialism is needed and gone further on that path.

    Instead of assuming less control, that caused the prior problem, we have decided more control is needed.
     
  8. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great analysis Andy. Even a lib should be able to understand the explanation.

    I think
     
  9. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in great numbers.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    " A restructuring of the income tax is not socialism." No, it is not. But it very well appears to be a means to an end.

    "workers of the world unite and you will never pay income tax again."
     
  11. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    That depends entirely upon the actual purpose of the restructuring. Lets look at the following line from the OP:

    "...wealthy Americans. It's about time they payed their fair share..."

    Some of the stats surrounding who pays how much of the tax burden has already been shared in this thread but what you'll never hear is a fixed number as to what constitutes "fair". The top 50% pay 96% of income taxes and that same top 50% will soon be paying 100%. When do the "Progressives" find "fairness" has been achieved? Historically, not till there is equal poverty and misery among the people... When there are no "Rich" people left to tax, only poor people wholly dependent on government to survive (Cuba). That's all their emotion based class warfare policy can achieve: Universal Failure. That is the most common way for politicians to cement one party in perpetual power and create a ruling class.

    Taxes have only one purpose: to fund the expenditures of the government. If you tinker with the tax code for the purpose of maximizing revenue to the Government while treating all Americans equally, then its not Socialist. Its fiscally sound policy.

    When taxes are used as a tool for "social justice" or to "fix" inequities that arise from Capitalism (redistribution of wealth) or are levied disproportionately among the population (tax the rich to subsidize poverty), all without regard to the actual revenue created by such policies (spending that continues to outpace revenue), then you have a socialist tax policy... in our case "Progressive".

    Ever noticed that the longer we keep this "Progressive" tax, the farther we spend future generations into debt? Strange how the "wants and needs" always manage to outpace an ability to pay and the the only answer Washington can come up with is for us to become more "Progressive", spend ourselves further into debt while demanding ever increasing income tax from an ever shrinking income tax base.

    Even the actual Communists in the former Soviet Union have seen the light and decided to "Change" their "Progressive" tax system to a Flat Tax. Rather than taxing only those who "can afford it", all people are taxed one low flat rate - as if they were all equal under the law and in the eyes of their governemnt - and the result has been MORE revenue to the government than ever before... Remember, its the Russians and Chinese that have been funding our debt (until recently, and they didn't stop because they ran out of money, they no longer have faith that we are on a path of recovery but one of a total collapse).

    PLC, I know you're one of those who say "We've been through worse before... We'll get through this." ...Right... and the titanic was unsinkable... We've never been at this point before, ever... but other countries have and it didn't end well for them. Our last two recessions were brought on by the collapse of market bubbles (the Tech Bubble and the Housing Bubble) and now we are trying to "recover" from the Housing bubble by printing money and creating a currency bubble.

    A presentation on the state of our currency, by Satan's mentally challenged younger brother:


    Now back to taxes... "If you make less than $250,000 a year... you won't see your taxes raised one penny, in fact, you will get a reduction in your taxes!" Sound familiar?

    Raising taxes on business and industry is an indirect tax increase on me, the consumer.... and I've been watching that "hidden" taxation take deeper and deeper bites out of my wallet. For example, the new Tobacco tax raised the cost of cigarettes by nearly $1 a pack... That was a tax on me, the consumer, causing my yearly tax burden to rise by $720 a year (2 packs a day, 30 days, 12 months [2x30x12=720]. And by the way, I don't come anywhere close to making $250,000 a year.

    I can hear the Anti-Smoking Nazi's now, "Good! Dirty smokers deserve to pay more!" (an argument based on the nebulous term of "fairness", a selfish, petty, vindictive doctrine, rather than an actual interest in maximizing revenue). Mark my words, government will come out and report their revenue from tobacco sales has actually fallen far short of projections and the politicians will gladly announce they are making up the loss by raising taxes on something we ALL have to use... like electricity or gasoline. Cheering on a tax that targets a minority segment of the population always turns out to be a tax on everyone. Taxes are not being designed to maximize revenue, they are being used as a tool for politicians to expand their power, wield that power over the citizens, and socially engineer our actions and activities through the tax policy, I.E. Socialism.
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You know, I have to ask... what are the libs going to say when all our predictions here come true?

    [​IMG]
     
  13. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are right, it isn't socialist. It is fascist. He is gaining controlling interest in the means of production. I heard barny frank say that since they held controlling interest in AIG that they would be able to recover the bail out money that they gave.

    Under socialism, there is no pretense that government controls the means of production. Under fascism, non government men and women are left in what appear to be the positions of power but are controlled by government.
     
  14. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .....And, under the Republican Party, we (apparently) have the means to borrow-our-way outta anything.

    :rolleyes:
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And your democrats have shown to be different how? Do you remember the $1 trillion government just borrowed?

    Of course there is actually one action that is far worse than borrowing. It's called simply printing money, which PLC1 has shown above.

    You do understand at least enough of history to get what happened to Germany when they started printing money, right?
     
Loading...

Share This Page