More Republican lies...Taxes

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
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.

tax_rate-chart.gif



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

tax_rate-chart.gif



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

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.
 
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.

tax_rate-chart.gif



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

tax_rate-chart.gif



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

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
 
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.

The following is from dictionary.com:

So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

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:
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

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.
 
Great analysis Andy. Even a lib should be able to understand the explanation.

I think
 
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.

" 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."
 
A restructuring of the income tax is not socialism.

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.
 
You know, I have to ask... what are the libs going to say when all our predictions here come true?

toon031909.gif
 
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Werbung:
.....And, under the Republican Party, we (apparently) have the means to borrow-our-way outta anything.

:rolleyes:

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?
 
Back
Top