Barack Obama says rich should pay more tax in call to Congress to resolve US deficit crisis

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Taxing at higher rates will increase revenue for a very very short period of
>time as it will kill or slow the one of the only two actions that will help solve
>this problem.

Given that we had booming economies when the highest tax bracket was 70% or higher - history disagrees with that.

>Without growth the revenues will shrink very quickly

Without growth revenues will stay the same. (However, I agree that they're low right now.)

>There is no tax rate we can put in place to sustain the current spending
>levels . . .

Agreed there. We cannot tax our way out of this.

>and that action would be to DRASTICALLY cut spending and shrink
>the government.

And a left winger would claim "but if you cut government spending drastically then military contracts will evaporate! Defense contractors will shut down! Government agencies will lay people off! People will be out of work! The economy will crater!"

And they're just as right as you are. It will be painful to increase taxes. It will be painful to cut back government spending. But both have to happen.

So, you are saying the gov can not live on 4.46 T a year huh....

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,434]

>So, you are saying the gov can not live on 4.46 T a year huh....

Sorry, tried the serious-discussion angle. My mistake.

[winsor 187]

Your idea is to go to your bosses at your small regional paper supply company(the tax payers), and tell them that you know you spent recklessly,

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Your idea is to go to your bosses at your small regional paper supply company(the tax payers), and tell them that you know you spent recklessly,

no, my plan is to tax (increase the household income) the rich (who are the richest they have ever been in the entire history of human civilisation). your plan seems to be to sing lalalalala at the problem...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed.

I don't think we have seen all that much "excesses of the masses" over the last 30 years... real value of their dollars... has gone down... the excesses have all been upward to the 2% in a flood

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Your idea is to go to your bosses at your small regional paper supply company(the tax payers), and tell them that you know you spent recklessly,

no, my plan is to tax (increase the household income) the rich (who are the richest they have ever been in the entire history of human civilisation). your plan seems to be to sing lalalalala at the problem...

Assuming you went to school, did they teach Arithmetic there? If so, did you pass?

[billvon 2,434]

DD - enough.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed.

I don't think we have seen all that much "excesses of the masses" over the last 30 years... real value of their dollars... has gone down... the excesses have all been upward to the 2% in a flood

The masses who don't pay income tax (now 47% of households many of which have at least two working people) vote for political parties which favor big government with 38% of the tab picked up by the top 1%, 21% picked up by the next 4%, and 11% by the next 5% for 70% of income tax revenues from 10% of the population.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed.

I don't think we have seen all that much "excesses of the masses" over the last 30 years... real value of their dollars... has gone down... the excesses have all been upward to the 2% in a flood

The masses who don't pay income tax (now 47% of households many of which have at least two working people) vote for political parties which favor big government with 38% of the tab picked up by the top 1%, 21% picked up by the next 4%, and 11% by the next 5% for 70% of income tax revenues from 10% of the population.

The top 2% are going to come to regret just how well they are doing....

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

[fasted3 0]

Thanks for the link.

I think the same thing, but could not express it nearly as well.

But what do I know?

[mnealtx 0]

They make the presumption that it's a zero-sum game, which is not the case.

I like how they mention the bankers, but big Labor is conspicuously absent from their article.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

DD - enough.

enough what? are you sure you've called this right?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Consumer demand accounts for around 70 percent of our economic output. And with so much wealth having been redistributed upward through a 40-year class-war from above, American consumers are too tapped out to spend as they once did. This remains the core issue in this sluggish, largely jobless recovery. The wealthy, in their voracious appetite for a bigger piece of the national pie, are the real job-killers in this economic climate.

Don't take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that “the main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists” the paper surveyed. That jibes with what business owners themselves are saying. Last week, the National Federation of Independent Businesses released a survey of small businessmen and women that found widespread “pessimism about future business conditions and expected real sales gains.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/151705/why_the_wealthiest_americans_are_the_real_%27job-killers%27/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed.

I don't think we have seen all that much "excesses of the masses" over the last 30 years... real value of their dollars... has gone down... the excesses have all been upward to the 2% in a flood

The masses who don't pay income tax (now 47% of households many of which have at least two working people) vote for political parties which favor big government with 38% of the tab picked up by the top 1%, 21% picked up by the next 4%, and 11% by the next 5% for 70% of income tax revenues from 10% of the population.

The top 2% are going to come to regret just how well they are doing....

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Thanks for the link, Jeanne.

The problem with many well-considered analyses is the systemic inability to distinguish between pathology and symptom.

The propensity for legal personnel to hold elective office is reflective of the process by which we have authored the demise of our way of life. Though we rail at the fact that candidates either lie outright or are blissfully unaware that what they say is entirely untrue (or simply meaningless), we immeditely cull from the field those whose assessment of the realities we face is accurate on the whole (nobody bats 1000).

We bitch about the top 1%, yet we fail to note how credulous we have been about every bubble that came along. When Albania quit being Communist, the population pumped all its money into Ponzi schemes (I'm not making this up). When a Ponzi scheme would fail, these same people would borrow further to "invest" in the next Ponzi scheme.

Though we like to make fun of Albanians (and it's hard not to), we are no better. Bernie Madoff asked why everyone was mad at him, when the US Government was a Ponzi scheme - and he would know.

Thus, the inequities between the Uber-rich and the unwashed masses, in addition to being offensive, distasteful and immoral, are symptomatic of the fundamental mechanisms at work whereby our doom is ensured.

Any good magician will tell you that the key is to keep your audience successfully distracted and you can do obvious things unnoticed. We have been focused so intently upon compelling distractions that the basis for our way of life has slipped away from us, and there is no going back. The days of unlimited cheap energy are over, and our overall survival is dependent upon unlimited cheap energy.

Thus, the people at the top are akin to the social elite at the end of the Roman Empire, where their way of life was an obscenity,but the society from which it sprang was inexorably headed for collapse.

In any event, you can judge whether an issue is pivotal to our survival if it is viewed as a political third rail - think Ron Paul (and he has only part of the equation).

Alan Dean Foster, in his "Last Starfighter," had a dialogue on the bridge of the evil alien ship that sums it up.

"What do we do now?"

"We die."


BSBD,

Winsor

[Amazon 7]

"We Die"

Not all will. Some have made allowances for what is coming and insulated themselves and a few around them for living with the consequences of the current obsenity that is our economic system. Those at the top... WILL fall the farthest since they will be pretty much incapable of life in the reality that will be facing them either by training or by resources.

[weekender 0]

Quote

"We Die"

Not all will. Some have made allowances for what is coming and insulated themselves and a few around them for living with the consequences of the current obsenity that is our economic system. Those at the top... WILL fall the farthest since they will be pretty much incapable of life in the reality that will be facing them either by training or by resources.

i agree they will fall the farthest in the sense they have the most to lose if there is a collapse.

what do you mean they will be incapable of life in the reality....? i honestly dont understand your point.

if you think because someone is rich or succesful they are unable to live without money, i think your out of touch. have you ever met a wealthy person? in my experience, they are normal people that just have more money. they are no more or less capable of surviving a disaster than anyone else. also i find most come from modest or slightly upper middle class backrounds and are not that out of touch with their past. the President is a perfect example. he is only a few years removed from a normal life.

I find reading your posts that you have a cartoon image of rich people and bankers specifically. do you really think rich people are like Mr Burns? how many wealthy people do you know personally that are like that?

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Amazon 7]

Trust me on this.. I have worked around a hell of a lot of people that certainly fall into the rich category.

I doubt most of them are capable of growing their own food or shooting it. I would think the place in Medina.... would not be so much fun when the power goes poof ( the batteries and diesel won't last for all that long

I think you will find most of the people in that picture... do have a clue about what it means to be outnumbered by have nots.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Trust me on this.. I have worked around a hell of a lot of people that certainly fall into the rich category.

I doubt most of them are capable of growing their own food or shooting it. I would think the place in Medina.... would not be so much fun when the power goes poof ( the batteries and diesel won't last for all that long

I think you will find most of the people in that picture... do have a clue about what it means to be outnumbered by have nots.

i would imagine most people, rich and poor, would find it difficult in the scenario you described.

our experiences differ. i live in one of the wealthiest counties in the US. Just outside of NYC. it would be silly to assume they are any less able to shoot a gun or grow food. Not based on the number of hunting and garden clubs in the area. hunting is common among the rich. so is bragging about your zuchini and tomato's.

Do you live Springfield?. Is that you Smithers? Be honest.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Trust me on this.. I have worked around a hell of a lot of people that certainly fall into the rich category.

I doubt most of them are capable of growing their own food or shooting it. I would think the place in Medina.... would not be so much fun when the power goes poof ( the batteries and diesel won't last for all that long

I think you will find most of the people in that picture... do have a clue about what it means to be outnumbered by have nots.

i would imagine most people, rich and poor, would find it difficult in the scenario you described.

our experiences differ. i live in one of the wealthiest counties in the US. Just outside of NYC. it would be silly to assume they are any less able to shoot a gun or grow food. Not based on the number of hunting and garden clubs in the area. hunting is common among the rich. so is bragging about your zuchini and tomato's.

Do you live Springfield?. Is that you Smithers? Be honest.

Yes our experiences do differ... and when all the have nots start flooding out of the city looking for what you have..... in your wealthiest county in the country.. have fun

Nope.. now run along and have fun in your little cartoon world since you seem to idolize it so.

[DanJohnson 0]

[the man who has ordered more air strikes and more cruise missiles be fired than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.reply]

Those weapons were fired in the name of "Peace"!

War = Security

Security = Peace

War = Peace..,

Any questions pinko faggots?

[DanJohnson 0]

[replydo you really think rich people are like Mr Burns? how many wealthy people do you know personally that are like that?

[DanJohnson 0]

[replyIt is becoming apparent that we have to increase taxes on everyone AND cut spending even to people's favorite programs to plug the hole in the budget. It will be painful and several sacred cows will have to get slaughtered. But the other option - do nothing - is much worse.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, as far as "taxing the rich" to cover the excesses of the masses goes, I have seen it tried and I am not impressed.

I don't think we have seen all that much "excesses of the masses" over the last 30 years... real value of their dollars... has gone down... the excesses have all been upward to the 2% in a flood

The masses who don't pay income tax (now 47% of households many of which have at least two working people) vote for political parties which favor big government with 38% of the tab picked up by the top 1%, 21% picked up by the next 4%, and 11% by the next 5% for 70% of income tax revenues from 10% of the population.

The top 2% are going to come to regret just how well they are doing....

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Although a nice identifiable target for our Two Minutes Hate the 2% aren't the problem.

The real problems are

1) Large corporations/industries (with big chunks owned by the 2%, unions' pension plans, etc), their lobbyists, and a corporatist/fascist federal government.

Government sponsored entities buying or guaranteeing mortgages and assuming the risk while banks and investors profited from origination and servicing fees helped the housing bubble form with gullible buyers allowed to buy property at untenable prices with the rest of us dragged along and still paying prices 20% over their inflation-adjusted trend line which has been essentially flat since WWII.

Special rules for health insurance like exclusion from the anti-trust act allow higher prices for bigger profits and more dollars stolen from consumers. Group plan tax treatment creates captive consumers from whom more money can be taken.

The credit supply resulting from government student loans and lowering risk for private lenders by allowing their claims to survive bankruptcy is allowing education costs to balloon at 4X the rate of inflation.

etc.

2) First-past-the-post elections with geographic districts.

These inevitably result in two "parties" that are essentially alike with both supporting the corporatist status quo and disagreeing only on minor details like whether to spend more money for the Prison Guard's Union or Teacher's Union.

Any one wanting to change that is unelectable because their support base is geographically diverse. 20% of the population supporting libertarian ideals end up with 0 US Senators and 0 US Representatives instead of 10 and 87 respectively.

A move to proportional representation isn't going to happen because it would be too disruptive to the incumbents' re-election and politicians being promoted from state to national office on their promise of time at the federal feed bag.

Pissing and moaning about how "The Wealthy" don't pay their fair share of a broken government is a big distraction from the fact that the government is not the sort of thing any of us should be spending money on.

[DanJohnson 0]

Any one wanting to change that is unelectable because their support base is geographically diverse. 20% of the population supporting libertarian ideals end up with 0 US Senators and 0 US Representatives instead of 10 and 87 respectively.

A move to proportional representation isn't going to happen because it would be too disruptive to the incumbents' re-election and politicians being promoted from state to national office on their promise of time at the federal feed bag.

Pissing and moaning about how "The Wealthy" don't pay their fair share of a broken government is a big distraction from the fact that the government is not the sort of thing any of us should be spending money on.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Any one wanting to change that is unelectable because their support base is geographically diverse. 20% of the population supporting libertarian ideals end up with 0 US Senators and 0 US Representatives instead of 10 and 87 respectively.

A move to proportional representation isn't going to happen because it would be too disruptive to the incumbents' re-election and politicians being promoted from state to national office on their promise of time at the federal feed bag.

Pissing and moaning about how "The Wealthy" don't pay their fair share of a broken government is a big distraction from the fact that the government is not the sort of thing any of us should be spending money on.

So do you , Drew, support the idea of just not paying Federal Income Taxes?