The appropriately named Weiner has one talking point that he sticks to like super glue.

I know some are going to disagree… but I actually like full contact politics. Throw in some red meat and grap your popcorn.

Sorry I missed this one, but this quote is telling: “Bachmann: “Real world is where America lives, it’s not the bubble in Washington, D.C. where they engage in fantasy economics.”” If anyone lives in a fantasy world and has no grasp on reality it is that moonbat named Bachmann. Minnesotans have GOT to be humiliated that her district of pinheads sent her back to DC.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
The appropriately named Weiner has one talking point that he sticks to like super glue.

You mean the facts? I suppose you’re right.

tatboy said:
I know some are going to disagree… but I actually like full contact politics. Throw in some red meat and grap your popcorn.

I don’t disagree – and I like beer with the read meat and popcorn.

I like how Harry Smith just makes the Democrat arguments for them.

Hey Weiner, how about instead of spending and HAVING to tax people more to pay for it, we cut spending??? Democrats don’t seem to get that. I am still in shock that Weiner defended the death tax by saying that we shouldn’t care about it because we will be dead. How about people who EARNED that money and it has ALREADY been taxed and we want to leave it to our children? Enough taxes already, for EVERYONE!

Nacho, Weiner, like most libs, wouldn’t recognize a fact if it landed on his face and started to wiggle.

Fact: Wiener proves again that coddlers need coddling! Ask Bill Adkins or Nacho they are freeloaders needing government to tell them which way is up and are to stupid to earn it for themselves!

espo222 said:
ALREADY been taxed and we want to leave it to our children?

Easy. Becasue we live in a meritocracy where talent and hard worked are rewarded, and inheritance promotes sloth and laziness. And we are talking about a marginal tax rate system where estates above only a certain threshold are taxed substantially.

Nacho said:
You mean the facts? I suppose you’re right.

You mean the “fact” that taking less of someone elses money is a giveaway. Look, I’m not rich by any measure, but I don’t hate someone just because they do better, or were born into a better situation than me. Good for them. Weiner, Nacho, and the Dems seem to be under the assumption (judgeing by their statments) that ALL money is federal money and whatever they don’t take is a charity they bestow upon you . Once again… letting someone keep money THEY EARNED is NOT a giveaway. Giveing away money to people who DIDN’T earn it IS a giveaway. Overpaying a govt worker and providing lavish benifits over and above the private sector at the expence of the taxpayers IS a giveaway. If you TAKE from the kitty it is a giveaway and you a a leach. If you earn your own money and put into the kitty you are a provider and NOT a leach. How about sticking to that fact.

What an ass-clown Wiener is. Most of the ‘millionaires & billionaires’ that he WHINES about are Democrats trying to find ‘safe harbors’ for their yachts (or pretending not to have them in the first place). Democrats stopped being the party of the ‘working person’ decades ago.

ChrisNH said:
What an ass-clown Wiener is. Most of the ‘millionaires & billionaires’ that he WHINES about are Democrats trying to find ’safe harbors’ for their yachts (or pretending not to have them in the first place). Democrats stopped being the party of the ‘working person’ decades ago.

Even if you’re right that “Democrats stopped being the party of the ‘working person’ decades ago” the world knows the Republicans have NEVER been the party of the ‘working person’ but, instead, are intent upon screwing them from behind and without even a kiss on the neck.

Fox News: Serving the Freeper community since 1996 said:
Easy. Becasue we live in a meritocracy where talent and hard worked are rewarded, and inheritance promotes sloth and laziness. And we are talking about a marginal tax rate system where estates above only a certain threshold are taxed substantially.

That’s the answer you are going with, really??? You are saying that because children of wealthy people inherit EARNED money then they will become lazy? Who cares??? Neither I nor you are paying for the money that goes to them, but we are paying for the welfare recipients and other entitlement programs as well as th bailouts and healthcare. I don’t care if Paris Hilton, who can’t stand, inherits 100 million and decides to buy yachts and champagne and vacation for the rest of her life. It’s her right to do that. Playing the game that because the money is “new” to the children, therefore it must be taxed, it BS. It was already taxed when the parents earned it. it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure that wealthy people’s children do not become lazy or have too much money. That is where you and the rest of the idiot democrats are totally wrong.

tatboy said:
You mean the “fact” that taking less of someone elses money is a giveaway. Look, I’m not rich by any measure, but I don’t hate someone just because they do better, or were born into a better situation than me. Good for them. Weiner, Nacho, and the Dems seem to be under the assumption (judgeing by their statments) that ALL money is federal money and whatever they don’t take is a charity they bestow upon you . Once again… letting someone keep money THEY EARNED is NOT a giveaway. Giveing away money to people who DIDN’T earn it IS a giveaway. Overpaying a govt worker and providing lavish benifits over and above the private sector at the expence of the taxpayers IS a giveaway. If you TAKE from the kitty it is a giveaway and you a a leach. If you earn your own money and put into the kitty you are a provider and NOT a leach. How about sticking to that fact.

In the real word, when you have an outrageous credit card debt, you don’t deal with it by saying “I’m just going to stop spending money.” In the real world, you go out there and get another job and increase your revenue AND address your economic inefficiencies.

espo222 said:
Hey Weiner, how about instead of spending and HAVING to tax people more to pay for it, we cut spending??? Democrats don’t seem to get that

You don’t seem to get that the money has already been spent and THAT needs to be dealt with first.

Nacho,
Let’s see if I can get you to answer the question that has been posed to Weiner and other libs, but I’ve NEVER heard they give a straight answer. What % of their income should the “rich” have to pay in taxes? And I want and actual #, not lib spin.

Nacho said:
In the real word, when you have an outrageous credit card debt, you don’t deal with it by saying “I’m just going to stop spending money.” In the real world, you go out there and get another job and increase your revenue AND address your economic inefficiencies.

your kidding right

The world is being duped and controlled by the Bilderberg Group and here is proof!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderberg-2010-prisonplanet-com-master-page.html – World depression is a planned event!

http://www.somethingmustbreak.net/id147.html

http://333crucible.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/bilderberg-group/

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100528_bilderberg_agenda.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/cfr.html

Nacho said:
In the real word, when you have an outrageous credit card debt, you don’t deal with it by saying “I’m just going to stop spending money.” In the real world, you go out there and get another job and increase your revenue AND address your economic inefficiencies.

So, let’s put the spenders to work; we can send them to a 3rd world factory and let them work off the debt they placed on the shoulders of the American people. Oh, and my truck needs a wash job and my Cadillac needs a wax job.

espo222 said:
espo222 says:
January 2, 2011 at 1:32 pm espo222(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

“Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline,” Buffett said. “A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.”
–Warren Buffet

Nacho said:
In the real word, when you have an outrageous credit card debt, you don’t deal with it by saying “I’m just going to stop spending money.” In the real world, you go out there and get another job and increase your revenue AND address your economic inefficiencies.

no, you reduce your spending to less than you earn, then pay off your debt

Nahu Tuk said:
So, let’s put the spenders to work; we can send them to a 3rd world factory and let them work off the debt they placed on the shoulders of the American people. Oh, and my truck needs a wash job and my Cadillac needs a wax job.

You mean the estimated $2 trillion+ that two wars cost us and will continue to cost us for years as we look after all the injured American solders wasn’t for you and your Cadillac also?

Nacho said:
You don’t seem to get that the money has already been spent and THAT needs to be dealt with first.

And when you spend money you pay taxes on that. If I make 1000 bucks and get taxed 400, I have 600 left. if I decide to buy some lumber to improve my house, I get taxed on that and then my property taxes go up too. Then I have some extra money left, out of the 600, and I decide to go to NYC. I get taxed on the plane ticket and on the hotel room. Lets say I have 200 left and I decide to invest in stock and make another 500, that gets taxed also. When is enough, ENOUGH??? There are already too many taxes and playing class warfare is not gonna end up well for the Dems.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ~

Winston Churchill

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ~

Winston Churchill

Warren Buffet is a champion of capitalism.

If you want to learn about the rights of the government and their role in taxing, you should watch a show called Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, he will educate you liberals who want higher taxes on others, while most likely paying no taxes, yourselves.

espo222 said:
If you want to learn about the rights of the government and their role in taxing, you should watch a show called Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, he will educate you liberals who want higher taxes on others, while most likely paying no taxes, yourselves.

He is a phony. He played the moderate for years on Fox News and he gets a new show and suddenly is a champion of Libertarianism.

He says he is “I love Fox news”, but his actions sometimes speak to the contrary.

~ All fingers are not alike, If you cut bigger ones to make all equal it is communism, If you stretch smaller ones to make all equal it is socialism, If you do nothing to make all equal it is capitalism. ~

B. J. Gupta

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
He says he is “I love Fox news”, but his actions sometimes speak to the contrary.

~ All fingers are not alike, If you cut bigger ones to make all equal it is communism, If you stretch smaller ones to make all equal it is socialism, If you do nothing to make all equal it is capitalism. ~

B. J. Gupta

It is not what he says heretic. It is his whole life devoted to the pursuit of it.

Dave Barry said it best :

” In domestic politics, a partisan debate rages over what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. The Democrats, suddenly alarmed about the deficit, want to raise taxes on people making $250,000 a year — or, as the Democrats routinely refer to them, “billionaires.” The Republicans want to extend tax cuts for everybody, but compensate by cutting federal spending at a later date using an amazing new spending-cutting device they have seen advertised on TV. ”

Weiner and Schultz are the two most charming Democrats this side of Frank and Grayson .

He’s a lib, therefore, he cannot also be a champion of capitalism. The just don’t fit. I do love how you libs hold him up as your capitalistic hero.

Nacho said:
You don’t seem to get that the money has already been spent and THAT needs to be dealt with first.

Fact: Yes it was spent like an open broken faucet. Now you need to turn off the faucet first to do the repairs of what’s broke then audit what was spent to fix the broken running faucet the pay for it! Buisness 101!

Still waiting for just one lib with the intellectual honesty to say what % the “rich” should have to pay in taxes.

“Apparently my Republican friends believe the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires – somehow the bill fairy pays for that.”

Weiner is still incapable of distibguishing revenue from spending. Thatnk for sending that yippy little moron back to Congress, Nwy York! And Charlie Rangel, too!

I thought Jews were generally good at math…

Whoa…typo central. Sorry ’bout that.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Still waiting for just one lib with the intellectual honesty to say what % the “rich” should have to pay in taxes.

How about you answer your question first.

“Intellectual honesty” That’s “rich”

K, so Nacho won’t answer. Any other libs want to take a stab at some intellectual honesty? Why are you libs SO scared to tell people what you really think?

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
K, so Nacho won’t answer. Any other libs want to take a stab at some intellectual honesty? Why are you libs SO scared to tell people what you really think?

Why are you avoiding your Intellectual question? What’s the matter? You don’t wanna answer it? Are you SCARED?

Bill Adkins said:
Republicans have NEVER been the party of the ‘working person’

Democrats are invested in getting people to vote for them under the ‘guise’ of promises that never come true (has that ‘War on Poverty’ ended yet? Thought so). Republicans are invested in the human spirit…working to better themselves rather than sitting on porches waiting for ‘guv-mint’ checks. Republicans WANT people to have jobs; ergo, they ARE the party of the ‘working person.’ Go back to bed and cry your tears of failure there.

espo222 said:
If you want to learn about the rights of the government and their role in taxing, you should watch a show called Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, he will educate you liberals who want higher taxes on others, while most likely paying no taxes, yourselves.

and by watching napolitano you will also learn how he doesn’t believe the world trade center came down after planes crashed into them. he’s just another nutjob.

In the 70s, England really put the taxes on their rich and it worked out well. Most of them moved to other countries.

ChrisNH said:
Democrats are invested in getting people to vote for them under the ‘guise’ of promises that never come true (has that ‘War on Poverty’ ended yet? Thought so). Republicans are invested in the human spirit…working to better themselves rather than sitting on porches waiting for ‘guv-mint’ checks. Republicans WANT people to have jobs; ergo, they ARE the party of the ‘working person.’ Go back to bed and cry your tears of failure there.

which is why they wouldn’t give tax cuts to the working class until their rich campaign donors got them also.

After all this stupidity I have but one question…

Why is everything suddenly in italics?

Nacho, I like the idea of a flat tax. Your turn. Come on, man up and tell us what you really think.

Nacho said:
In the real word, when you have an outrageous credit card debt, you don’t deal with it by saying “I’m just going to stop spending money.” In the real world, you go out there and get another job and increase your revenue AND address your economic inefficiencies.

But the Dems (and to a lesser extent Repubs) solution to outrageous credit card debt is to compound more debt… Why??? And I don’t mean good debt like works projects, I mean giveaway programs that don’t benefit the economy one bit.

tatboy said:
I know some are going to disagree… but I actually like full contact politics. Throw in some red meat and grap your popcorn.

fully agree and whether you agree with weiner or not, he can always be counted on to bring his a-game.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Nacho, I like the idea of a flat tax. Your turn. Come on, man up and tell us what you really think.

You didn’t answer your question. That just looks like a lib spin to me, you want a #, remember?

Paul Westlake said:
After all this stupidity I have but one question…

Why is everything suddenly in italics?

thank god…after last night, i thought it was just me.

Paul Westlake said:
After all this stupidity I have but one question… Why is everything suddenly in italics?

I was wondering the same thing???

Nacho, I’d have more respect for you if you just admitted that you’d rather not answer the question on the grounds that it will make you look like an idiot, who knows nothing about economics.

Convenient how asswipe Republicans..a.k.a. PARTY OF NO ALWAYS bring up how much the Obama Administration has spent to right the ship. NEVER EVER mention the moron Bush Administrations MANY MANY faults of passing legislation with no need to pay for it! Where in the hell where these NO’ers and the American public back then when these policies CAUSED what we and ‘all the children’ are and will be experiencing NOW and in the coming years? #1-Cut/sever with a meat cleaver DEFENSE SPENDING! No one from either party EVER investigated, nor wanted to know where that pallet of 50 was it million or billion can not recall the hugh amount ever went when it SUPPOSEDLY fell off of a truck in IRAQ. The CIA did not investigate,
how interesting. In a nutshell wiper Repubs..don’t preach your real world to me and tell Boner to stop ALWAYS
saying ‘The American People’ for which he does not give a dam!

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Nacho, I’d have more respect for you if you just admitted that you’d rather not answer the question on the grounds that it will make you look like an idiot, who knows nothing about economics.

More lib spin…

I’ll take that one, you tax the rich at 39% instead of the current 35%. That’s what the Dems were proposing and if you’ll recall, it worked out pretty well for Clinton who left office with a surplus. You also know what happened to that surplus and who pissed it away on tax cuts for the rich through reconciliation! Now, add that travesty to 2 unpaid for wars and well, you know what happened next.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
thank god…after last night, i thought it was just me.

LOL

Paul Westlake said:
After all this stupidity I have but one question…

Why is everything suddenly in italics?

It’s italics day. It’s another liberal plot to take our eyes off the real problems.

Maybe it’s some Fox News plot or it’s racist?

Florenzo said:
Convenient how asswipe Republicans..a.k.a. PARTY OF NO ALWAYS bring up how much the Obama Administration has spent to right the ship. NEVER EVER mention the moron Bush Administrations MANY MANY faults of passing legislation with no need to pay for it! Where in the hell where these NO’ers and the American public back then when these policies CAUSED what we and ‘all the children’ are and will be experiencing NOW and in the coming years? #1-Cut/sever with a meat cleaver DEFENSE SPENDING! No one from either party EVER investigated, nor wanted to know where that pallet of 50 was it million or billion can not recall the hugh amount ever went when it SUPPOSEDLY fell off of a truck in IRAQ. The CIA did not investigate,
how interesting. In a nutshell wiper Repubs..don’t preach your real world to me and tell Boner to stop ALWAYS
saying ‘The American People’ for which he does not give a dam!

but they say they learned their lesson and promise never, ever to do it again.
if fact, wasn’t it mike pence who added some earmarks to a bill but then voted against it?
see, maybe they did learn their lesson.

roxsteady said:
I’ll take that one, you tax the rich at 39% instead of the current 35%.

Yeah, and if Seeing2012 wasn’t so damn lazy or ignorant she could have looked it up herself.

Not all italics are criminals. But all criminals are italics.

Bill Adkins said:
Even if you’re right that “Democrats stopped being the party of the ‘working person’ decades ago” the world knows the Republicans have NEVER been the party of the ‘working person’ but, instead, are intent upon screwing them from behind and without even a kiss on the neck.

That’s false. First, let’s not confuse Conservatives with Republicans. (I’m not saying you did, but need to differentiate them.) The reason the Tea party is rising is because of the current state of affairs from BOTH PARTIES.

The idea is to go back to our roots and focus on the individual and limited government. It’s the only way to get back our system, which i call: “Democratic Capitalism Based On A Moral Foundation.”

As for the Democrats and the “small guy”, look no further than what the liberals have done to the people of the inner cities for 50 years. About all we can say about the liberal programs and policies is there is a lot of hopelessness, despair and death.

We need to go back to our roots.

Don’cha just love Democrats? Schultz opens the segment with Democrat rhetoric about the mythical “Clinton budget surplus” and “paying” for tax cuts, then admonishes Bachmann as partisan for mentioning the “real world.” Weiner just squeaks in the background like worn-out brakes. You people are really destitute for leadership, huh?

John,

Yeah, and if Seeing2012 wasn’t so damn lazy or ignorant she could have looked it up herself.

Looked up what, I was asking for an opinion. You’re not too bright, are ya?

Hey Weiner, gold hit another high!

You are such a loser Weinerman.

espo222 said:
Hey Weiner, how about instead of spending and HAVING to tax people more to pay for it, we cut spending??? Democrats don’t seem to get that. I am still in shock that Weiner defended the death tax by saying that we shouldn’t care about it because we will be dead. How about people who EARNED that money and it has ALREADY been taxed and we want to leave it to our children? Enough taxes already, for EVERYONE!

I agree with part of this, about cutting spending. Government tries to do too much. But I don’t think there is anything collectively valuable about giving more money to your kids when you die. You don’t even pay the death tax until you leave an estate greater than $1.3 million (for a couple). I know my ideological brothers on the right think I am FOS on this, but that is what I’ve seen in my 60+ years: people who inherit a lot of money are indolent boobs. Make them work like the rest of us. They will actually enjoy their life more. And we need health care (not Obama’s ‘everyone gets the same care’ utopian crap, but cheap government clinics for the poor, located in poor neighborhoods, for primary care, with specialist care available at VA hospitals. Hell, NIXON WAS FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. Are you saying he was too liberal ? Health care must be good for big business or he would not have supported it.

Alz said:
It’s italics day. It’s another liberal plot to take our eyes off the real problems.

Maybe it’s some Fox News plot or it’s racist?

writer said:
Not all italics are criminals. But all criminals are italics.

If we approached politics like a stand-up comedy routine, all of this would much easier. ;-)

roxsteady said:
if you’ll recall, it worked out pretty well for Clinton who left office with a surplus.

Sorry, Bill left office with a recession as the dot-com bubble burst. You know, the dot-com bubble that fueled tons of taxes?

Plus, do you think Clinton would have been restrained if the Republicans (who were more Conservative) thwarted his ability to spend so much?

Alas, the Republicans lost their way, but the new Tea Party people will hopefully save the day and stop the rampant liberalism.

BTW, did you know that one of the hallmarks of that era (fixing welfare) WAS UNDONE BY OBAMA in on the stimulus bills? (See http://bit.ly/gIUsoZ)

More GOP bullshit talking points! This is part of the wingnut problem. An unwillingness to accept reality. Good luck!

Bill Adkins said:
Sorry I missed this one, but this quote is telling: “Bachmann: “Real world is where America lives, it’s not the bubble in Washington, D.C. where they engage in fantasy economics.”” If anyone lives in a fantasy world and has no grasp on reality it is that moonbat named Bachmann. Minnesotans have GOT to be humiliated that her district of pinheads sent her back to DC.

Considering your state gave us Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, its odd that only Bachmann elicits embarrassment in you.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Let’s see if I can get you to answer the question that has been posed to Weiner and other libs, but I’ve NEVER heard they give a straight answer.

This is what you asked for. I don’t see you asking for for an opinion. I see you asking what Weiner and other Democrats proposed. Maybe you are the one not too bright. You can’t even remember what you asked for.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Let’s see if I can get you to answer the question that has been posed to Weiner and other libs, but I’ve NEVER heard they give a straight answer. What % of their income should the “rich” have to pay in taxes? And I want and actual #, not lib spin.

the real john t said:
his is what you asked for. I don’t see you asking for for an opinion. I see you asking what Weiner and other Democrats proposed. Maybe you are the one not too bright. You can’t even remember what you asked for.

LOL

YOU won’t answer her ? either.

Not a surprise.

Wasserman Schultz is unable to think.She is part of the i love Obama attack team at the Democratic Party.SCHULTZ’S HEAD IS FULL OF CEMENT.

Ha. BACHMANN GOT SERVED.

Shrill loser that she is, not a surprise.

greatj said:
Wasserman Schultz is unable to think.She is part of the i love Obama attack team at the Democratic Party.SCHULTZ’S HEAD IS FULL OF CEMENT.

What are you talking about? Debbie came off as very engaged, smart and on top of her game.

M Colins said:
Considering your state gave us Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, its odd that only Bachmann elicits embarrassment in you.

No, I’m not from Minnesota – I am embarrassed however – my state sent Aqua Buddha sick-o-phant Rand Paul to DC.

Bill Adkins said:
… screwing them from behind and without even a kiss on the neck.

I always get a kiss on the neck. I demand it.

this round goes to michelle bachman. ‘paying for tax cuts’ is intellectual suicide and wiener sounds ridiculous saying it.

Judge Mental said:
I always get a kiss on the neck. I demand it.

I believe you.

snatchax said:
this round goes to michelle bachman. ‘paying for tax cuts’ is intellectual suicide and wiener sounds ridiculous saying it.

No, financing tax cuts from 2002 on by borrowing from China and other nations, adding $6.5 trillion to the national debt 2001-Fy 2009, resulting in the least tax revenue since the ’30s — that’s intellectual and national suicide — Bachmann and the Tea Party are pulling the plug on this once great nation.

Bachmann is a truly sad human being. I pray that the wizard gives her a brain.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Bachmann is a truly sad human being. I pray that the wizard gives her a brain.

Naah – Scarecrow is using it.

Bill Adkins said:
Naah – Scarecrow is using it.

They can cut it in half, it’ll still be more than Bachmann has now.

Bill Adkins said:
No, financing tax cuts from 2002 on by borrowing from China and other nations, adding $6.5 trillion to the national debt 2001-Fy 2009, resulting in the least tax revenue since the ’30s — that’s intellectual and national suicide — Bachmann and the Tea Party are pulling the plug on this once great nation.

Fact: Borrow from China? Left Nut talking points are all lies! Hey democrats here is a site for you and only you!
http://www.moneyinstructor.com/play.asp
Go for it losers! This isn’t the only place Ozero uses!

How the hell did Mr.Weenie, and his sidekick get elected? When Weenie gets hit in the face with facts, his strategy is to interrupt and shout down his opponent. He’s done it so often, to so many, I’m surprises he hasn’t got his ass kicked, because, that’s what he desperately needs.

Finally! someone puts her in her place.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz should not be allowed in public without a bag over her head.

snatchax said:
“this round goes to michelle bachman. ‘paying for tax cuts’ is intellectual suicide and wiener sounds ridiculous saying it.”

Bill Adkins says:
“No, financing tax cuts from 2002 on by borrowing from China and other nations, adding $6.5 trillion to the national debt 2001-Fy 2009, resulting in the least tax revenue since the ’30s — that’s intellectual and national suicide — Bachmann and the Tea Party are pulling the plug on this once great nation.”

I’d argue that they’re trying to pull the wool over American’s eyes. Starting with Reagan, who tripled — TRIPLED — the national debt in his 8 years as president, Republican Administrations have been responsible for the largest increases in the national debt, not Carter, not Clinton. What’s is worse, they did this during mostly boom times when historically tax revenues have gone up, not down. As Adkins claims, Bush’s tax and spend policies were responsible for almost half of the current debt. Debts always increase during downtimes, and that is what was missing in the video clip above. Bush’s tax policies were so irresponsible that his first Sec. of Treasury, Paul O’Neil, an outspoken critic of the tax cuts, to be fired for recommending tax increases to deal with the deficits. Bush didn’t care about the deficits, the debt; and now suddenly the right and the far right are up on arms about the deficit spending when it’s needed to get the economy back on track.

Where the hell were these critics when O’Neil was fired?

Dems are great at spending other people’s money. Never their own. They will continue spending our money until there is no more money to spend. They are destroying this country.

rocky road said:
Dems are great at spending other people’s money. Never their own. They will continue spending our money until there is no more money to spend. They are destroying this country.

Wait!! I can’t breathe!! You’re killing me! Hooo haaaahhaoaooooooa!! The Republicans and Goober W.. Bush add $65. trillion to the national debt 2001-FY 2009 — since 1981 Republicans have added about $10 trillion total (yes, Goober did 65% of that amount and added more than all other administrations combined) — and you hammer the Democrats for spending? You’re slapstick comedy on the hoof!!

IF we were to stop the wars today and we were to dismantle the federal reserve, we’d have plenty of money. Everything else is partisan BS and everyone that jumps into the debate is only pointing fingers, not REALLY finding any way of solving any problem. Hell, they ARE the problem. But then we’d have the problem of a happy and calm populace, and we certainly can’t have that now, can we? What would you people do if you weren’t bashing each other over the head with your party’s latest talking points??

chaser said:
IF we were to stop the wars today

We are in the process of leaving Iraq.

chaser said:
What would you people do if you weren’t bashing each other over the head with your party’s latest talking points??

Well, somebody’s got to stand up for Truth and Righteousness. Apparently you’re stuck in neutral on that ‘ol ‘right and wrong’ thingie.

BTW, I don’t belong to any party. Democrats are pure EVIL, and Republicans are pure STUPID. Conservatism is our salvation.

Davo said:
Well, somebody’s got to stand up for Truth and Righteousness. Apparently you’re stuck in neutral on that ‘ol ‘right and wrong’ thingie.

BTW, I don’t belong to any party. Democrats are pure EVIL, and Republicans are pure STUPID. Conservatism is our salvation.

People like Bachmann support brothels and ignorance. Is that what you really want for America? Why do you hate this great country?

SarahP said:
People like Bachmann support brothels and ignorance. Is that what you really want for America? Why do you hate this great country?

That doesn’t make since. He called republicans “pure stupid” and Bachmann is a republican.

Kird said:
That doesn’t make since. He called republicans “pure stupid” and Bachmann is a republican.

It makes sense it you consider the fact that Bachmann is not only “pure stupid” but one one of the dumbest human beings to walk on all fours…ever.

SarahP said:
It makes sense it you consider the fact that Bachmann is not only “pure stupid” but one one of the dumbest human beings to walk on all fours…ever.

That’s fine, but what in Davo’s post makes you think he supports her?

SarahP said:
It makes sense it you consider the fact that Bachmann is not only “pure stupid” but one one of the dumbest human beings to walk on all fours…ever.

I’m so glad you find my statement accurate. But then, that means you’ve staked your soul on the side of “EVIL.” Tsk, tsk.

Kird said:
That’s fine, but what in Davo’s post makes you think he supports her?

Are you kidding?

notsofast said:
LOL
YOU won’t answer her ? either.
Not a surprise.

The question was already answered by Roxsteady. I guess you were to ignorant to look at it or follow the comments.

SarahP said:
Are you kidding?

No, from what he wrote he hates both the dems and the pubs.

Bill Adkins said:
No, financing tax cuts from 2002 on by borrowing from China and other nations,

You do not finance tax cuts, or as the case it here, holding the line on tax rates. You finance spending.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Bachmann is a truly sad human being. I pray that the wizard gives her a brain.

And one for you, too.

the real john t said:
The question was already answered by Roxsteady. I guess you were to ignorant to look at it or follow the comments.

You are truly dumb.

She ask libs to answer the question- that means you too.

But you don’t even know what a tax is , do you dullard?

the real john t said:
The question was already answered by Roxsteady. I guess you were to ignorant to look at it or follow the comments.

It was an opinion question ergo multiple answers would suffice. I’ll answer it too; I would favor a 20% federal flat tax rate for everybody above the poverty line. In my opinion, that’s fair.

SarahP said:
It makes sense it you consider the fact that Bachmann is not only “pure stupid” but one one of the dumbest human beings to walk on all fours…ever.

SarahP said:
Are you kidding?

Fact: Thank God almighty that this one is one of theirs and that’s not funny and that’s not kidding!
Liberal tribe one and all progressives cut from the same cloth, fell from the same tree!

notsofast said:
She ask libs to answer the question- that means you too.
But you don’t even know what a tax is , do you dullard?

You didn’t read her first comment did you? Or else you can’t comprehend what you read being so ignorant as you are.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Thank God almighty that this one is one of theirs and that’s not funny and that’s not kidding!
Liberal tribe one and all progressives cut from the same cloth, fell from the same tree!

I was wondering how long it would take the resident racist to respond with some brain dead response. By the way asshole, when you say “groid” what do you mean? Don’t make me say it dip shit.. I really don’t want to embarrass you.

chaser said:
IF we were to stop the wars today and we were to dismantle the federal reserve, we’d have plenty of money. Everything else is partisan BS and everyone that jumps into the debate is only pointing fingers, not REALLY finding any way of solving any problem. Hell, they ARE the problem. But then we’d have the problem of a happy and calm populace, and we certainly can’t have that now, can we? What would you people do if you weren’t bashing each other over the head with your party’s latest talking points??

Talking in purely economic terms how much money do we save by pulling troops back into a work environment that can’t even sustain new people entering the workforce? If we add 250,000-350,000 back into the country with no job opportunities doesn’t this just subtract from the supposed 70 billion we would save? Doesn’t it become another entitlement addition? Add in the losses in tax revenue from ”War Businesses” and thier layoffs and the net savings will be insignificant. Sometimes I think this administration factors that in with the pullout dates. Me, I’d like it to end because the losses of human life is not worth it .

Bill Adkins said:
Minnesotans have GOT to be humiliated that her district of pinheads sent her back to DC.

Jesse Ventura and Al Franken. Game. Set. Match.

An Idea – Ignore SarahP and he’ll go away .

writer said:
Not all italics are criminals. But all criminals are italics.

I’m a little tired of all this italics-cism. You people should be ashamed.

SmartAlec said:
I’m a little tired of all this italics-cism.

Then leave and quit your bitching. OH! But that’s right, all the RWers can do is bitch.

the real john t said:
Then leave and quit your bitching. OH! But that’s right, all the RWers can do is bitch.

That was a joke post you responded to.

Kird said:
That was a joke post you responded to.

How did you know that, did you write it?

the real john t said:
How did you know that, did you write it?

No, but I did, jackwagon.

SmartAlec said:
No, but I did, jackwagon.

Michelle Bachmann wants you to smell her asshole. You’re just the guy.

SarahP said:
Michelle Bachmann wants you to smell her asshole. You’re just the guy.

I am sure it smells better than your comments

SmartAlec said:
I am sure it smells better than your comments

You would know dip shit.

Bye Ted…better things to do than argue with a Scatologist. Go ahead and make another sh*t joke.

SarahP is one of the stars in the video clip “2 girls 1 cup”

I will not post a link, google it…but be warned of it’s graphic nature.

Man that dick Weiner sure is getting his mug in the headlines alot lately solely because he’s behaving like a lunatic.
Did he hang around Alan disGrayson too much in the Congressional men’s locker room?

There were some teaching moments on the show that were missed. First, when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security, she is wrong. The SS Trust Fund is real, and it has about $2.5 trillion in it. Annual interest due the Trust Fund greatly exceeds the $120 billion. We need to all understand this.
Second, when the moderator says that “the entitlements really are the monkey on the taxpayers’ backs,” he does not understand that the “entitlements” add nothing to the annual federal debt. The annual budget comes in with a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, most of which is caused by the wars, the military and military-industrial complex, homeland security, State Department and interest due on the federal debt expenses. Those have EVERYTHING to do with the annual deficit; Social Security and, for the most part, Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the annual deficit.

Bachmann said awhile back that health care to the 9/11 first responders was a Government “entitlement” program. Where was she on 9/11? She was probably curled up in a little ball screaming for her mommy. She really loves this country. NOT!

George Fulmore said:
There were some teaching moments on the show that were missed. First, when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security, she is wrong. The SS Trust Fund is real, and it has about $2.5 trillion in it. Annual interest due the Trust Fund greatly exceeds the $120 billion. We need to all understand this.Second, when the moderator says that “the entitlements really are the monkey on the taxpayers’ backs,” he does not understand that the “entitlements” add nothing to the annual federal debt. The annual budget comes in with a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, most of which is caused by the wars, the military and military-industrial complex, homeland security, State Department and interest due on the federal debt expenses. Those have EVERYTHING to do with the annual deficit; Social Security and, for the most part, Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the annual deficit.

why? explain this please

George Fulmore says:

There were some teaching moments on the show that were missed. First, when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security, she is wrong. The SS Trust Fund is real, and it has about $2.5 trillion in it. Annual interest due the Trust Fund greatly exceeds the $120 billion. We need to all understand this.
Second, when the moderator says that “the entitlements really are the monkey on the taxpayers’ backs,” he does not understand that the “entitlements” add nothing to the annual federal debt. The annual budget comes in with a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, most of which is caused by the wars, the military and military-industrial complex, homeland security, State Department and interest due on the federal debt expenses. Those have EVERYTHING to do with the annual deficit; Social Security and, for the most part, Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the annual deficit.

Don’t ever give teas facts, it sents them into a hate rage and name calling! Bachmann never, never does anything but spin false numbers and when called on it, she never has any answers! Has it became clear to anyone, Bachmann is not too bright and the “right “does have some house members that are not nuts, but they eat their own by saying they are not conservative enough! When did crazy and no facts become the teas dream?

George Fulmore said:
There were some teaching moments on the show that were missed. First, when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security, she is wrong. The SS Trust Fund is real, and it has about $2.5 trillion in it. Annual interest due the Trust Fund greatly exceeds the $120 billion. We need to all understand this.Second, when the moderator says that “the entitlements really are the monkey on the taxpayers’ backs,” he does not understand that the “entitlements” add nothing to the annual federal debt. The annual budget comes in with a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, most of which is caused by the wars, the military and military-industrial complex, homeland security, State Department and interest due on the federal debt expenses. Those have EVERYTHING to do with the annual deficit; Social Security and, for the most part, Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the annual deficit.

Please don’t confuse the demagogues with facts.

timcajun said:
George Fulmore says:

There were some teaching moments on the show that were missed. First, when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security, she is wrong. The SS Trust Fund is real, and it has about $2.5 trillion in it. Annual interest due the Trust Fund greatly exceeds the $120 billion. We need to all understand this.
Second, when the moderator says that “the entitlements really are the monkey on the taxpayers’ backs,” he does not understand that the “entitlements” add nothing to the annual federal debt. The annual budget comes in with a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, most of which is caused by the wars, the military and military-industrial complex, homeland security, State Department and interest due on the federal debt expenses. Those have EVERYTHING to do with the annual deficit; Social Security and, for the most part, Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the annual deficit.

Don’t ever give teas facts, it sents them into a hate rage and name calling! Bachmann never, never does anything but spin false numbers and when called on it, she never has any answers! Has it became clear to anyone, Bachmann is not too bright and the “right “does have some house members that are not nuts, but they eat their own by saying they are not conservative enough! When did crazy and no facts become the teas dream?

There is no Social Security Trust Fund – the money has been spent. It’s a big Ponzi Scheme.

..and lsat I heard, we’re running negative now so we’re on the downside of the Ponzi curve. Gee, thanks liberals/Democrats.

Alz said:
There is no Social Security Trust Fund – the money has been spent. It’s a big Ponzi Scheme.

And you’re so full of shit it’s probably coming out your ears. Why don’t you give us a link to prove that?

the real john t said:
And you’re so full of shit it’s probably coming out your ears. Why don’t you give us a link to prove that?

One link of many: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

An excerpt:

“Yet this popular belief is utterly mistaken. There is no trust fund, and Congress is doing nothing wrong. What’s more, the source of this misunderstanding is the government’s own public-relations efforts to create support for Social Security.”

“The Social Security Act of 1935 created an ‘Old-Aged Reserve Account’ in the Treasury and required that every year an amount determined sufficient to pay that year’s benefits was to be appropriated to it. Any of this money not needed for benefits was to be invested in federal debt (including unmarketable debt issued for this purpose) earning 3 percent interest, or other government-guaranteed debt.”

THERE IS NO TRUST FUND; it’s all funny accounting. It’s a Ponzi Scheme. The money you and I put into it just gets spent. We don’t have any real account! When anyone else tries a Ponzi Scheme, they are arrested!

Alz said:
One link of many: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

Key sentence in the article: “Social Security’s Trust Fund, then, is really a Treasury account, nothing more.”

So is your checking account at your bank. It’s just another account, no different than any other, save for amounts. This article is suggesting that GAAP doesn’t exist. Of course the trust fund is just another account, what else could it be? And so what that it was created as a PR device, it’s still a real account. And the liabilities and assets are still real, too, regardless of the general fund or any IOUs. And this argument flies in the face of the Chamber of Commerce’s argument that foreign donations didn’t finance any of their political advertising because it was held in a separate account. So make your choice, either accounts are always drawing from the same general fund, the same assets and hold the same liabilities, or it is possible to put up an accounting firewall between the two. One supports the CoC, the other supports the notion of a SS trust fund. Pick your poison.

Paul Westlake said:
After all this stupidity I have but one question… Why is everything suddenly in italics?

You got somethin’ against Italics? How about us (former) Greeks? You got somethin’ against us, too?

Well, pilgrim, just watch THIS video of Weiner getting dressed down by his ol’ lady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_r-jO3lKE

An Idea said:
An Idea – Ignore SarahP and he’ll go away .

And a great idea at that.

Alz said:
One link of many: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

Did you look at the date on that article? It’s 2000. The guy that wrote it belongs to the Earhart Foundation which backs neoconservatism. You need to do better than that Skippy.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Thank God almighty…….

ha ha ha ha kind of ironic isn’t it

Paul Westlake said:
Key sentence in the article: “Social Security’s Trust Fund, then, is really a Treasury account, nothing more.”

So is your checking account at your bank. It’s just another account, no different than any other, save for amounts. This article is suggesting that GAAP doesn’t exist. Of course the trust fund is just another account, what else could it be? And so what that it was created as a PR device, it’s still a real account. And the liabilities and assets are still real, too, regardless of the general fund or any IOUs. And this argument flies in the face of the Chamber of Commerce’s argument that foreign donations didn’t finance any of their political advertising because it was held in a separate account. So make your choice, either accounts are always drawing from the same general fund, the same assets and hold the same liabilities, or it is possible to put up an accounting firewall between the two. One supports the CoC, the other supports the notion of a SS trust fund. Pick your poison.

Jeeze, there’s NO TRUST FUND. The MONEY IS SPENT! Man, you liberals are dense.

Here’s from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

“Although Social Security is often said to have a “trust fund,” the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program’s revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.”

The key words are “accounting device”. The money is spent because of the deficts. The money was used to by treasuries. since the country is MANY MORE TRILLIONS in the hole, there can be no surplus. It’s all an accounting gimmick. It’s a friggin’ Ponzi Scheme.

If we actually had our own personal accounts, we’d be able to see it. those forms that are sent out just estimate what we’ll be paid, not what we have as an asset. If they were real assets, we could borrow against them and/or give the balance to our kids!

When you f*ck me over…please be polite.

I was born in 1960; I’m amused by tricky math!

I’ve tried to save my dollars up.

If we actually had our own personal accounts, we’d be able to see it. those forms that are sent out just estimate what we’ll be paid, not what we have as an asset.

Yep, technically I can retire @$850 per month now. I’ve been taxed that and I am reminded of that.

But I have to wait until a certain age before I can enjoy the monies I’ve already paid towards my retirement.

I’m all for an individual IRA.

I’ve paid into the fund, that’s a wonderful thing if it is solvent.

If y’all think a smart personal fund plan requiires the government…perhaps you should rethink yer solvency.

I saved my money the old fashioned way…I just saved my money

Who was the bozo that tried to explain maxed out credit cards and a heightened spending ceiling?

Teach me economics.

Alz said:
Here’s from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

You should read the whole article you link to instead of cherry picking over it to and finding what suits you.

“Mr. Goss, the actuary, emphasized that even the $29 billion shortfall projected for this year was small, relative to the roughly $700 billion that would flow in and out of the system. The system, he added, has a balance of about $2.5 trillion that will take decades to deplete.”

the real john t said:
has a balance of about $2.5 trillion

There is NO balance. The debt is much greater than the $2.5 trillion and the money is all in one place – the government! They spent the money ON OTHER THINGS! As the article pointed out, it’s all an “accounting DEVICE!” Duh!

More info:
1) Here is the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ As you can see Social Security’s UNFUNDED Liability is over $14 trillion.

2) From the Social Security website:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

Question: “What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?” Answer: “Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in “special-issue” securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.”

See “…and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.” This is another word for Ponzi.

Alz said:
This is another word for Ponzi.

No, it’s how the Government works. Do you think this occurred just under the Obama Admin.? It’s been going on for years and years. Maybe you should go back to high school and finish your education. Maybe you should take a course in Government to find out how it works.

the real john t said:
No, it’s how the Government works. Do you think this occurred just under the Obama Admin.? It’s been going on for years and years. Maybe you should go back to high school and finish your education. Maybe you should take a course in Government to find out how it works.

I never said it was new. The idea of Social Security, while bad to begin with, has only gotten worse over time.

Ponzi Schemes cannot work. Why is it so hard for you liberals to see that a Ponzi Scheme is doomed to fail. The government has made promises that it cannot keep.

Alz said:
Why is it so hard for you liberals to see that a Ponzi Scheme is doomed to fail.

How long has SS been in effect? When did it fail? Keep drinking the Kool Ade little man.

Alz said:
the term really serves as an accounting device

Good grief! What the hell do you think an “accounting device” is? Your checking account is an “accounting device.” It’s a vehicle for distinguishing between the ownership of the many assets and liabilities in financial institutions and fiduciaries of all kinds. It’s called GAAP. It’s how literally every legitimate CPA in America operates. The accounting principle here is that the assets belong to the people who contributed to the pool, and even though the government can “borrow” that money for other things (like stupid wars, massive tax cuts and unfunded drug entitlements), the assets are still “accounted” for as though they never left – the IOU. Since this particular class of assets is restricted to only one investment vehicle – t-bills – it’s easy to calculate the interest based on the entire class and add that increase to the liability ledger of the general budget. It balances and is accounted for. That’s how it works. Look it up and stop freaking out.

Alz said:
I never said it was new. The idea of Social Security, while bad to begin with, has only gotten worse over time.

Ponzi Schemes cannot work. Why is it so hard for you liberals to see that a Ponzi Scheme is doomed to fail. The government has made promises that it cannot keep.

Social Security isn’t a ponzi scheme because nobody is getting the big payoff. No SS recipient gets more than they’re owed. And nobody gets a cut of the investment, as with, say, my brokerage account. The world is not coming to an end over social security, even if it was insolvent, which it isn’t. It increases the deficit by a tiny amount and only because the pool was borrowed on in the first place. Minor adjustments will need to be made in the future but it’s nowhere near the black hole that Medicare represents, which itself is nowhere near the amount of waste and fraud in spending on defense and clandestine services, particularly in corrupt contractors. And that’s not just a waste of money, it’s a threat to our national security to throw good money after bad ideas in the defense sector. Or how about the hundreds of billions wasted on the always-doomed-to-failure war on drugs? You wanna get your freak out going, why don’t you go after the big money, or at least the stupid money.

pyrope said:
You got somethin’ against Italics? How about us (former) Greeks? You got somethin’ against us, too?

Well, I am German-Irish. ;-)

Alz said:
2) From the Social Security website:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

Question: “What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?” Answer: “Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in “special-issue” securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.”

Right, in exactly the same way that a bank’s total assets reflects the sum of all deposits in its general fund, indistinguishable from each other. But GAAP maintains the integrity of original ownership of all assets and liabilities, so you can still tell your checking account apart from mine, but the fund we draw from is, technically, a general cash fund and your cash is indistinguishable from that fund until you withdraw it. This isn’t rocket science, kid.

Alz said:
Here is the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ As you can see Social Security’s UNFUNDED Liability is over $14 trillion.

And this is the total liability over time as incurred to this point, not what we have to pay all at once in the foreseeable future. There isn’t going to be a single $14T bill that comes due at some point. It’s “unfunded” because the accounts are full of IOUs, but everyone is still getting their SS checks. Why? Because there’s still enough money flowing through the system every year to handle the liabilities. Will a day come when that doesn’t work any more? Absolutely, you bet. Is that today, or any day in the next twenty years? No. SS is an issue, not an emergency. The money wasted on corrupt defense contractors, fighting illegal drugs, and enriching for-profit health insurance is much worse for our economy.

espo222 said:
how about…we cut spending??? Democrats don’t seem to get that. I am still in shock that Weiner defended the death tax by saying that we shouldn’t care about it because we will be dead.

You just don’t seem to get that you just contradicted yourself. You cut spending (but don’t really saying which spending) and then cut revenue and then act like everything equals out in the end. Again, like most tea party tools, all I hear is goons like Bachmann say we’re going to “cut spending” and then when pressed for specifics, she AND YOU turn around and get snippy about a “death tax” that you clearly won’t receive, and Bachmann, if she would receive it, it would be from her father’s farm that he took no less than $250,000 in free federal farm subsidies to sustain. That’s simply a class war red herring and not a solution.

Defending wayward tax cuts is not the manner in which you earn cred for “fiscal responsibilities”. Particularly when it is precisely those tax cuts that led to huge deficits in the first place.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Nacho, Weiner, like most libs, wouldn’t recognize a fact if it landed on his face and started to wiggle.

And Bachmann couldn’t resist a Tea Party talking point if it tried to run away from her in a cheetah driving in a Formula 1 car. All she is is bundle of talking points, she’s naked without them. You’re simply not used to seeing anyone on Fox challenge her on them.

When Michelle Bachmann gives back the $250,000 her family took in free government money than she can talk all she wants about “fiscal responsibility”. Until then, she belongs in the annals of Tea Party Welfare Queen hypocrites like Sarah Palin whose state drew the most federal tax funding per capita from the government than any other state in the union all while paying the 2nd least highest tax rates. It’s no wonder the likes of Bachmann and Palin don’t like taxes, they aren’t used to paying them. But they sure as heck are used to spending them.

tatboy said:
You mean the “fact” that taking less of someone elses money is a giveaway. Look, I’m not rich by any measure

No you’re not, otherwise you wouldn’t be willfully misrepresenting our tax system. But not being rich doesn’t mean you haven’t become an apologists willing to spew rhetoric that defends those who would never in a million years defend you

tatboy said:
Once again… letting someone keep money THEY EARNED is NOT a giveaway

Except the wealthiest are keeping a disproportionate amount of the money they earn than the average Middle Class American is. Even Warren Buffet admitted that his actual tax rate is lower than that of his secretary’s. And why is that. Because it is the people in salary levels of Warren Buffet who actually MAKE the tax laws in this country. The rich may pay 70% of the taxes but they own 90% of the wealth and growing so they’re nowhere near paying their realistic share.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

tatboy said:
Giveing away money to people who DIDN’T earn it IS a giveaway.

No, it’s funding fiscal hypocrites like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin who like to go on and on about socialism but fail to recognize when they themselves benefited from such welfare.

tatboy said:
Overpaying a govt worker and providing lavish benifits over and above the private sector at the expence of the taxpayers IS a giveaway

Actually paying a worker their market worth even though those in private sector would just as soon hire an Indian or a Mexican to do the job is not a GIVEAWAY, that’s called a fair wage something NOT TO RICH dudes like you used to care about. Just because the private sector no longer feels compelled to maintain some semblance of a American Middle Class by paying a prevailing wage but yet fell completely entitled, even with all their tax cuts, to take the biggest bonuses many of them or their predecessors have seen EVER EVER EVER in the history of their companies (whether or not their companies are prospering or not) is not the fault of the government and the workers they hire.

There was a time that most private sector jobs were preferable because wages did increase. But that was long ago when people like you didn’t vote against your economic interest and become a stooge for the wealthy. But government jobs costs have simply kept pace with the cost of living. But for American corporations who continue to insist on AMERICAN tax cuts to “create jobs” the only cost of living they feel they need to maintain for their workers is one in the slums of India and on the other side of the border in Mexico. And, and the standard of living that allows them to buy their third home in Alps.

I got nothing against someone making money. But even the wealthiest Americans with some semblance of a conscious (ie the ones not feeding you your talking points) know that they aren’t paying what they should. Especially as their taxes have been on the steep decline but AMERICAN employment and Middle Class wages are going down and down.

Kim Barker said:
Except the wealthiest are keeping a disproportionate amount of the money they earn than the average Middle Class American is.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of things. Let’s look at some facts about who pays the income taxes.

All from ONE chart at http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
- The top 10% pay about 70% of the income taxes,
- the top 1% pay about as much as the bottom 95%
- and the bottom half pay about zero (3%) in federal taxes.

So the idea that the rich don’t pay enough taxes is silly. It’s one of the problems with liberals – they lie.

Now try to absorb this information and then adapt your opinion.

(I’ll be back tonight as I need to go make some money to pay for the bottom half.)

George Fulmore said:
when Michelle Bachman says that a $120 billion hole has been blown in Social Security

Bachmann likes to make these preposterous statements without ever coming clean on just how many times the federal government has borrowed AGAINST Social Security (without really paying it back) and even with those pillages it has STILL remained solvent. What Bachmann is doing with these silly talking points is basically pointing out that the GOP never liked Social Security or Medicare and they have spent the better part of 60 years trying to undo it. That’s why they’re so hell-bent to repeal health reform. Because it’s actually DOOMED to become POPULAR and SUCCESSFUL and that’s the last thing the GOP wants from a government policy.

Yep, that’s the GOP for you, forever whining about how ineffectual government is then getting elected and proving it. Yes Michelle, government does suck when people like you who don’t believe in it run it. A modern Republican running government is like an atheist running a church. They’re goal is to completely destroy it so that people like Mike Kelly can blather on about self-made when he actually inherited his father’s business. No wonder he’s against the estate tax. But that’s ok, Michelle Bachmann, I’m sure, got some of the wealth from her father’s farm that raked in $250,000 in federal farm subsidies, too.

Alz said:
So the idea that the rich don’t pay enough taxes is silly

I didn’t say that, I said they pay a disproportionately lower amount of their actual income than those in the middle class do. That’s simply a fact that fake conservatives don’t wish to concede because it happens to be true. Again, anyone in these income brackets would come clean about this open knowledge. You obviously aren’t one of them so you are defending out of pure ignorance. The REALITY IS the wealthy hold the monetary wealth in this country (again 90% and GROWING) and yet pay a far less percentage of that in taxes.

You can come back tonight after you’ve consulted Rush Limbaugh for additional talking points.

rocky road says:
“Dems are great at spending other people’s money. Never their own. They will continue spending our money until there is no more money to spend. They are destroying this country.”

It’s not the Dems who have mostly contributed to the national debt in the last 30 years. In fact, the R’s and the Dem’s both agree that the United States should act in the world like a government: cop, judge, jury and executioner. All of that costs tons (or footballs fields piled high) of money.

Republican are great at borrowing other people’s month; never their own (which doesn’t even make sense). They will continue borrowing our grandchildren’s money until there is no more credit left. They are destroying this country’s credit.

Facts rocky: they have a liberal bias.

Paul Westlake said:
It’s “unfunded” because the accounts are full of IOUs, but everyone is still getting their SS checks. Why?

Social Security is still funded as long as we have people loaning America money. These would be the same kind of investors that the previous administration turned to to loan us money to fund the wars that the American people who call themselves patriots were too cheap to show their willingness for a shared sacrifice by actually paying taxes to support it.

So what makes other nations INVEST in America through loans? Our consumer market which is now on the wane. What, at one time, made our market appealing? Growing Middle Class wages that keep our personal debt ratios low and heavy investment in our own infrastructure (including education and technologies) that help keep us competitive and the culmination of the factors that created a well-educated well-paid workforce that will keep buying foreign crap.

So why then are those investments doomed? Because America decided to cut our own taxes and let Chinese and other foreign money maintain our infrastructure, fund our wars, and prop up our housing market while the average American middle class consumer (whose disposable income was the aim of those foreign investors in the first place) become less educated and acquired growing personal debts and, thus, become a bigger investment risk. This is particularly the case as our consumer market stagnates and others are growing exponentially.

In other words, as long as America’s consumer market is of value, so too is our Social Security. But as long as people make excuses for thedwindling tax contribution of the short-changing wealthy and justify the continual need to DECLINE Middle Class wages to compete with laborers who live in shacks half a world away then so goes our Social Security (and our military, housing market, the bulk of our infrastructure and any number other commodities that the American people don’t feel to pay for in full). Without having a viable market, there is no reason to convince Americans to spend during their working years as their would have been, in our boom days, retirement funds waiting for us.

The future American market might as well spend when they are young not because Social Security will be there when they are old, because if the GOP repeals health care reform and continue to chop Middle Class wages, they probably won’t make it to old age anyway.

Kim Barker said:
I didn’t say that, I said they pay a disproportionately lower amount of their actual income than those in the middle class do. That’s simply a fact that fake conservatives don’t wish to concede because it happens to be true. Again, anyone in these income brackets would come clean about this open knowledge. You obviously aren’t one of them so you are defending out of pure ignorance. The REALITY IS the wealthy hold the monetary wealth in this country (again 90% and GROWING) and yet pay a far less percentage of that in taxes.

You can come back tonight after you’ve consulted Rush Limbaugh for additional talking points.

I didn’t leave yet.

It would be more fair for EVERYONE to pay the same rate. The Fair Tax or a flat tax would be better than what we have.

You say they “pay a disproportionately lower amount of their actual income than those in the middle class.” That doesn’t make sense. The bottom half pay about NOTHING. The top 1% pay about as much as the bottom 95%! So like a lot of things with liberals, you have it backwards.

So when the top 1% pay as much as the bottom 95%, it’s more correct to say that the rich pay a disproportionately HIGHER share of income taxes.”

Your approach seems to be designed to limit the number of rich people. That seems odd. With the rich paying such a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of the taxes, you would think that the liberals would be kicking themselves trying to find ways to make people more rich.

But I guess it fits the pattern: The liberals rarely work to make the poor more rich. Instead, they work to make the rich more poor and then say the poor are victims of the rich. So the idea is to force everyone to be equally poor. What a great system you have devised!

Kim Barker said:
because if the GOP repeals health care reform and continue to chop Middle Class wages, they probably won’t make it to old age anyway.

Gee, that doesn’t seem right. We use to have about the best healthcare system in the world – and that includes covering for millions of illegal aliens. But let’s look at the liberal way of thinking. Here’s i what Robert Reich said about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

As you can see, his logic is goofy and gross. Pay more, die sooner, fewer innovations: the liberal approach.

Kim Barker said:
I didn’t say that, I said they pay a disproportionately lower amount of their actual income than those in the middle class do. That’s simply a fact that fake conservatives don’t wish to concede because it happens to be true.

No, it isn’t Fully half of Americans pay no income tax at all. You need only to look at the progressive tax rates to realize that this statement is false.

Kim Barker said:
A modern Republican running government is like an atheist running a church. They’re goal is to completely destroy it so that people like Mike Kelly can blather on about self-made when he actually inherited his father’s business.

Jesus Christ, people, have we really become this frigging stupid? Limited government is not NO government. Reining out of control government in is not destroying the government.

There’s a little guidebook for what the government is supposed to do. You can find it here if you’d like to peruse it.

Fox News: Serving the Freeper community since 1996 said:
Warren Buffet is a champion of capitalism.

Actually Buffett is a robber baron of the worst sort. He has been slipping in and buying up what folks have to sell dirt cheap to afford the estate taxes he champions.

What a prince…….

Kim Barker said:
And Bachmann couldn’t resist a Tea Party talking point if it tried to run away from her in a cheetah driving in a Formula 1 car. All she is is bundle of talking points, she’s naked without them. You’re simply not used to seeing anyone on Fox challenge her on them. When Michelle Bachmann gives back the $250,000 her family took in free government money than she can talk all she wants about “fiscal responsibility”. Until then, she belongs in the annals of Tea Party Welfare Queen hypocrites like Sarah Palin whose state drew the most federal tax funding per capita from the government than any other state in the union all while paying the 2nd least highest tax rates. It’s no wonder the likes of Bachmann and Palin don’t like taxes, they aren’t used to paying them. But they sure as heck are used to spending them.

Nothing stops any of these folks you claim know they don’t pay their fair share from writing a check to cover the difference.

Lib or conservative.

It’s waaaaay too easy to take ours because we have nobody looking for us.

Bill Adkins said:
Wait!! I can’t breathe!! You’re killing me! Hooo haaaahhaoaooooooa!! The Republicans and Goober W.. Bush add $65. trillion to the national debt 2001-FY 2009 — since 1981 Republicans have added about $10 trillion total (yes, Goober did 65% of that amount and added more than all other administrations combined) — and you hammer the Democrats for spending? You’re slapstick comedy on the hoof!!

Funny how much of those increases you are so quick to laugh about came about between January 07 and the end of Bush’s term…..and who exactly was writing legislation then?

VoiceofReason said:
Funny how much of those increases you are so quick to laugh about came about between January 07 and the end of Bush’s term…..and who exactly was writing legislation then?

Even funniier how you can’t point to one piece of legislation for which you can hold Democrats accountable.

Alz said:
It would be more fair for EVERYONE to pay the same rate

Except that there are corporations who don’t even pay ANY taxes at all but yet I don’t see you having a fake moral outrage hissy fit about that. Again, if you were in any way familiar with how our tax laws were made, you would know how beneficial those tax codes are for the wealthy because they pay for the lobbyists that create those laws in the first place. If the GOP spend as much time shoring up the massive loopholes that allow for multi-billionaires to not contribute much or any tax revenue at all, you might have some semblance of an argument. But you’re FLAT TAX ruse is just that, a distraction not a viable solution. Until loopholes are done away with completely, then “flat tax” is a red herring that means NOTHING.

Alz said:
Your approach seems to be designed to limit the number of rich people

I have no desire to limit the number of wealthy in this country, I have a desire to have them pay the same PERCENTAGE of their wealth to taxes as those in Middle Income ranges do. As it stands, and as your bogus analogy which never addresses the actual percentage of how much of ones wealth that the wealthiest Americans contribute toward tax revenues will never concede, is that the wealthy do not PAY a higher percentage of their INDIVIDUAL wealth toward taxes. And even the wealth they own (which again is over 90% of the wealth in this country) does not equal their 70% of tax contribution.

It’s clear you’re not very wealthy. I know people who have this kind of wealth. They’d be the first to admit that they disproportionately are afforded tax cuts and other loopholes that the average American in the Middle Class does not have available to them or are wholly unaware of the availability of such write offs. For example, the current corporate tax rate is around 37%. I defy you to actually name ONE COMPANY that truly pays that rate. If you do, that company is foolish and needs to hire a new accountant because they aren’t taking advantage of the very many (THOUSANDS IN FACT) tax write offs that they have at their disposal. However, in other nations like, say the now DOOMED Ireland (whose corporate tax code was the envy, in theory, of American corporations) when they stated their tax code was 12% (plus typically 17% more for VAT), that tax code was CONSTANT. The loopholes that you find for corporations in America, don’t typically exist in most other nations.

And we won’t even talk about the very many red states that have become virtual tax havens for corporations and the wealthy–red states that because their wealthy aren’t paying taxes and, NOT COINCIDENTLY enough also have the highest rates of poverty, are also falling behind in education, health care, and economically because their middle class (what actually exists of a middle class) are the ones primarily carrying the burden of paying for public services and infrastructure since the wealthy in those states can’t bother to do so.

With every post, you’re simply revealing how ignorant you are of the tax codes, of the true wealth distribution in this country that tends to fall upwards ACTUALLY, and your bogus FLAT TAX is simply a means to run away from arguing the finer points of our current tax codes because you are wholly unaware of them. If you were nearly as RICH as those you’re defending, you’d be more enlightened about the reality of our tax system. You clearly are not so why do you feel the need to LIE on their behalf? They surely would not do the same for you.

Pablo said:
progressive tax rates

You mean the Progressive tax rates that were actually introduced to us, initially, by a Republican (Teddy Roosevelt) and that was much higher under other Republicans, both Reagan and Nixon (which I suppose makes them socialist, as well)? The part of the equation that you are clearly overlooking is that heightened percentage of the wealth in this country that has been taken over by fewer and fewer Americans. In fact, under the Bush administration, 3/4 of ALL WEALTH generated went to the top 5% of wealth earners while the average middle class and working class American income actually went down $2000/year.

In other words, as taxes for the wealthy go DOWN, the percentage of viable wealth in this country that they OWN goes up. That’s not a coincidence. Again, I wouldn’t have a beef with it if that acceleration of wealth by the very few was matched by actual output. As it stands, the average American, who output has increased, have not seen their actual wages increase. In fact, they have stagnated and, under Bush, dropped off.

At the same time, you have CEOs of companies that are actually in financial dire straits rewarding themselves with the biggest bonuses these companies have ever given out even though their companies declining revenues don’t justify it. This has little to do with the big bad REPUBLICAN CONCEIVED progressive income tax (which has become less and less progressive with every passing decade). It has to do with a business model that encourages CEOs to oversee short tenures so that companies are now rewarding people who make short-sighted decisions for short-term gain and let the long-term ill-effects of those decisions fall on someone else’s plate. By then, the bonehead who made the initial decisions will be long gone with billions in unearned bonuses in their pocket while handing their successors a plate of corporate backlash.

It’s sort of the same theory that the GOP have to governing, make a bunch of callous mistakes whose full effects aren’t felt until they are long gone and they become someone else’s problem. No wonder you tools are so willing to defend our current tax system and the business model that props it up. It’s the same model the GOP uses for governing.

But thanks for reminding us about the evil progressive tax codes that the GOP invented. Now if we can actually get you to recognize the true measure of wealth distribution in this country and the actual amount of wealth owned by the top 5% (over 90% total of all wealth) and the amount of taxes they actually pay (around 70% total) then you’d have clue.

Alz said:
use to have about the best healthcare system in the world

Yes, that was well before Richard Nixon invited the health insurers into the equation because they simply weren’t making enough profit. Now they make more profit than ANY ONE involved in the entire system and yet the system has rapidly declined. Thanks again for proving my point. That those who actually hold the largest percentage of wealth are the ones making the least important contribution to the whole system at large. It’s good t know that defending the MIDDLE MEN are the main priorities of GOP supporters instead of defending the people who offer the viable solutions and those who do the heavy lifting. Thinking and working are not the forte of those who support the GOP. Conniving is their most prided attribute.

VoiceofReason said:
Nothing stops any of these folks you claim know they don’t pay their fair share from writing a check to cover the difference.

Thanks for not making any sense and, by virtue, acknowledging that Bachmann and Palin are the epitome of hypocritical welfare queens.

Alz says:
“It would be more fair for EVERYONE to pay the same rate. The Fair Tax or a flat tax would be better than what we have.”

That would be fair for the great middle for America and grossly UNFAIR for the poor and the wealthy. The poor can’t make ends meet now. Taxes them would be akin to kicking them when they’re down. The rich can afford to pay a greater share, so they can make up what the working poor cannot afford.

This is in alignment with John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Increasing taxes on the rich is how Clinton established a surplus that the Bush Administration set to wipe out with its reactionary and irresponsible tax cuts.

GlennBeckReview said:
That would be fair for the great middle for America

It wouldn’t even be fair for the Middle Class because that presupposes that the very wealthy don’t have available to them hundreds if not thousands of tax cuts that neither the poor nor Middle Class do. As it stands, Warren Buffet only pays 16% of his wealth to taxes. Others in a similar economic position do the same. Very few Middle Income Americans can claim such nominal tax rates. Flat tax might seem simple enough except that it shows a willful ignorance about an existing tax code that benefits almost exclusively the wealthy who were responsible for co-authoring those codes to begin with. Sorry, whatever tax plans are favored by deadbeats like Steve Forbes who lives almost exclusively off wealth generated from his father are in no interest to anybody by fellow deadbeat heirs.

*anybody BUT fellow

GlennBeckReview said:
“That would be fair for the great middle for America”

A Kim Bo says:
“It wouldn’t even be fair for the Middle Class because that presupposes that the very wealthy don’t have available to them hundreds if not thousands of tax cuts that neither the poor nor Middle Class do.”

They do, but I don’t think that they CAN carry the entire burden of the government revenues AND the middle classes are paying now about the flat rate that they could afford under this modified flat tax. Also, the whole idea of a flat tax is to eliminate all of the loop holes and tax cuts that the wealthy now enjoy.

GlennBeckReview said:
Also, the whole idea of a flat tax is to eliminate all of the loop holes and tax cuts that the wealthy now enjoy.

That’s the theory but since the flat taxers haven’t even lifted a finger to do away with those loopholes, it’s still a fantasy based on a false premise. AGAIN, there are corporations who pay ZERO tax at all. And the states that have the most hospitable tax laws for the wealthy also happen to be the states that tend to be bottom dwellers when it comes to education, percentage of insured citizens, and salaries for their average citizen. These things go hand in hand.

The biggest financial issue with the vast majority of Americans is NOT their tax bill (which have been going down), it is all other costs from health insurance, tuition, gas, housing and hundreds of other purchases that rely on tax funding and government oversight to offset or maintain costs. Since that tax funding is not forthcoming (because tax revenues have been decreased and the wealthy don’t want to pay their share) and that oversight is all but non-existence (since the GOP decided that it was okay for the fox to guard the hen house when it came to overseeing regulations) then cost of living for Americans is constantly going up. Additionally those costs aren’t being matched by income levels especially as wealthy Americans who COULD create American jobs are being rewarded with tax cuts even when those jobs are sent elsewhere.

If anyone is at all serious about FLAT TAX policies, they need to show a good faith effort by killing these loopholes. Obama is game for tax reform this year, we’ll see if any of the GOP flat taxers will follow suit and offer up some loophole closures of their own.

A Kim Bo says:
“If anyone is at all serious about FLAT TAX policies, they need to show a good faith effort by killing these loopholes. Obama is game for tax reform this year, we’ll see if any of the GOP flat taxers will follow suit and offer up some loophole closures of their own.”

Let us hope. The problem is the low end. Poor people cannot afford any income tax. A pure flat tax is inherently unfair.

Maybe I need to rewrite my tax essay for Obama. Clinton Administration used a slice of my tax idea when they raised taxes which lead to prosperity and budget surpluses.

Listening to Debbie Wasserman Schultz is like feeling a breath of fresh air.

A Kim Bo said:
If anyone is at all serious about FLAT TAX policies, they need to show a good faith effort by killing these loopholes.

GlennBeckReview said:
Poor people cannot afford any income tax. A pure flat tax is inherently unfair.

Flat tax is more than unfair, it’s essentially theft by the wealthy classes. Everyone contributes to the social contract. The reason more people don’t break into wealthy homes and generally use violence to get what they want, is because those who derive the largest benefit from the social contract that holds that anarchy at bay put enough back in to allow the underclasses to have the services they need to be good citizens, parents, consumers and employees. If we flatten the tax, government will go bankrupt, the welfare state will be dismantled and acts of desperation will become the norm. Wealth will be destroyed faster than it can be created and everything America has built up since the last gilded age will be squashed in the twin vices of greed and ignorance. A flat tax is the end of the Republic as we know it.

Nacho said:
Why are you avoiding your Intellectual question? What’s the matter? You don’t wanna answer it? Are you SCARED?

Huh! That’s a laugher, you are trying to make my sides hurt.

The bottom line is when you do not have enough money to meet your obligations you both raise revenue and cut spending. Giving a huge tax cut to the wealthy may be good politics but it is bd economics. Obama cut a deal because he felt the trade offs were worth it. It made political sense but it did not make economic sense.

America’s military is spread around the world. We spend more on military spending than the rest of the world combined. We need to cut back on our military commitments overseas.

We spend more money on healthcare than any other nation in the world and receive inferior healthcare. Capitalism has it virtues but it does not work well where monopolies are an inherent part of the delivery of the good or service. That is we are the only developed country without a single payer government run health care system. Conservatives are claiming that the new healthcare system was a government takeover of healthcare. They are wrong. It was not. It was a big boon to the insurance companies who will make more money because of its requirement for nearly universal health coverage.

We need a single payer system that does a way with the parasitic insurance industry which adds absolutely no value to the health care system. We need a single paying entity that has the leverage to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies for lower rates. This would reduce the cost we all pay for health insurance and remove a huge competitive burden from American businesses which our wiser competitors do not have.

I have lived under a single payer system. I became seriously ill and required emergency care under that system including emergency ambulance transport from a subway station to a hospital in the evening. I required months of followup care and drugs. My heath insurance costs were a fraction of what they woud have been in the U.S. The level of care I received their was better and the facilities more modern than any I have seen in the U.S. I paid less money for American made drugs like Lipitor there than I now pay here. My insurance premiums are more than double what they were under the single payer system. My co-pays are more than quadruple what I was paying.

America’s entitlement programs are to expensive. They are inefficient. They are based upon an economic model that is inherently dysfunctional. We need to learn from the rest of the developed world. They see us as being a little crazy with our inefficient system They are right. We can reduce costs dramatically without cutting back on services if we could move beyond our outdated economic model for healthcare.

Here is the truth you can bank on. “By their fruits yee shall know them” Jesus

The fruits of Republicans are deficits, wars and social division. They represent the very wealthiest and could care less about the rest. Ask yourself, “How was it so many poor whites who did not own slaves died fighting for the slave power?”

The answer is as old as mankind. A small minority of very rich people divide and conquer. The do this by appealing to prejudice, creating fear and envy and telling the people they are under attack and only they ( the rich) can save them. They have managed to portray themselves as the champions of the middle class and “average Americans” as them make millions of dollars playing this game while portraying liberals and progressives as “elites” who wage “class warfare”. They were concerned about deficits when they were talking about health care reform to benefit the middle class but said not a word about the deficit creating tax break for the top 1%, along with the estate tax reduction. Deficits did not matter then!!

History is a great teacher. They spread fear and hate when social security was debated, when the rights of women and blacks were being debated ( remember in the 60s how they insisted blacks who demonstrated against discrimination were ‘Communist inspired by the Michele Bachmans of the world?) and even when minimum wage and child labor laws were considered, they denounced them as “un-American”. In every single case they spread hate, fear and lies while wrapping themselves in the flag of patriotism and family values. They did it then and they are doing it again.

This also explains why you cannot reason with them. They have an agenda… at heart they are content with their wealth and dont want anyone to disturb the way things are. That is what makes them Conservatives= unwilling to change.
Believe me years from now future generations will look on these fear mongers as we now look on the slave holders of the old south..

Vietnameravet said:
Here is the truth you can bank on. “By their fruits yee shall know them” Jesus

Believe me years from now future generations will look on these fear mongers as we now look on the slave holders of the old south..

Extremely well put. Historical perspective is everything but so few people in ours or any country have that kind of perspective.

Paul Westlake says:
“A flat tax is the end of the Republic as we know it.”

I question whether we live in a Republic any more. We’re veering toward empire, and Obama is not helping steer us away.

To your point, you come close to fear mongering. Paul, you make claims that I don’t think can be substantiated: “If we flatten the tax, government will go bankrupt, the welfare state will be dismantled and acts of desperation will become the norm. Wealth will be destroyed faster than it can be created and everything America has built up since the last gilded age will be squashed in the twin vices of greed and ignorance.”

If that flat tax were high enough, the government wouldn’t go bankrupt any time soon. The working poor would, but not the gov’t. If it were high enough, the welfare state could also be supported, but it would get larger as more of the working poor get pushed onto the welfare rolls. Acts of desperation ARE the norm. Homelessness is way up and pet abandonment is common. Wealth will go up, but the economy would fall. We’d become a banana Republic, a Third World superpower in a slow motion (one or two generations) collapse. That’s bad enough.

GlennBeckReview said:
Paul Westlake says:
“A flat tax is the end of the Republic as we know it.”

I question whether we live in a Republic any more. We’re veering toward empire, and Obama is not helping steer us away.

To your point, you come close to fear mongering. Paul, you make claims that I don’t think can be substantiated: “If we flatten the tax, government will go bankrupt, the welfare state will be dismantled and acts of desperation will become the norm. Wealth will be destroyed faster than it can be created and everything America has built up since the last gilded age will be squashed in the twin vices of greed and ignorance.”

If that flat tax were high enough, the government wouldn’t go bankrupt any time soon. The working poor would, but not the gov’t. If it were high enough, the welfare state could also be supported, but it would get larger as more of the working poor get pushed onto the welfare rolls. Acts of desperation ARE the norm. Homelessness is way up and pet abandonment is common. Wealth will go up, but the economy would fall. We’d become a banana Republic, a Third World superpower in a slow motion (one or two generations) collapse. That’s bad enough.

Those are all good points. But ironically, what you described as a bit of fear mongering (which is somewhat valid) includes an item you later describe as already occurring – acts of desperation – which was what the other items were all a build up to. And even if we assume I’m wrong about the depth of the mistake, if acts of desperation are common now, can you imagine what would happen if a third or more of the middle class was pushed into permanent destitution? This recession has been the worst economic malaise I’ve ever personally witnessed, and I remember Carter and the gas lines. Imagining the landscape you describe is bad enough without my hyperbole. But…

I believe the government would go bankrupt or cause hyper-inflation and then go bankrupt faster than you think. Exactly as you describe, the tax would have to be high enough to afford the budget, but that would push even more low-wage earners into poverty. Demand would collapse even further, driving up unemployment and accelerating the downward spiral started under supply-side economics. Tax receipts would plummet, foreclosures would spike, again, and government services would be tapped at a faster rate than ever. We already face a scenario very much like that in this recession with 49 states teetering on the brink, or near brink, of bankruptcy and hoping for help from Uncle Sam. And the irony of the Tea Party is that they may bring about all these things not with a flat tax but by merely forcing Congress to stop sending earmarks and block grants to states. State tax receipts have been eroded by the corporate shell game for decades and with property values down, they just can’t keep up with the larder anymore. And poor people are going to pay. That part is already happening, as all the “austerity” talk demonstrates. Ultimately, it won’t even take a flat tax to hasten our decline to third world status. It’s already being brewed in an angry teapot.

Paul Westlake says:
“I believe the government would go bankrupt or cause hyper-inflation and then go bankrupt faster than you think. Exactly as you describe, the tax would have to be high enough to afford the budget, but that would push even more low-wage earners into poverty.”

The issue on gov’t bankruptcy is how to pay off the $14 trillion. It, like the Civil War debt, will be a multi-generational effort. It’s going to involve more than income tax. As I indicated, a MODIFIED flat tax would have to be high enough to — along with other federal taxes — get the budget in the black, significantly in the black. Whatever that rate would be (15%) might be enough, it would be modified on the low end to 0% for those earning just above a living wage. The low end modification would ramp from 0 to 15%. The middle would be 15%. The other modification is at the high end, over $200,000. Some percentage of income, ideally decided by the Fed. Reserve, not Congress, would be taxed in addition to the 15%.

This is where economics really comes in: supply and and Laffer curves. Tax too much and you’ll have multiple problems of stifling motivation to earn more and stifling private investments needed to boost the economy. Tax too little, and you have the problem of the last decade: slow job growth and increasing disparity between rich and poor (class instability). Start with 35% supply side slice of income taxed above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples (straight and gay). That, as Clinton’s budgets showed, is a lot of “income” for the federal budget to manage for debt repayment and investments in green energy, Pentagon, infrastructure, aid to states in trouble, earmarks, etc.

Three tiers: Ramp-up rate for the working poor, flat in the middle and progressive, not capped and not excessive for the rich and wealthy. Now add “death taxes” and capital gains taxes that are fair and progressive, and that’s all we need to solve our nasty budget woes. If we don’t deal with them intelligently, then we’ll be heading toward “third world status.”

On the spending side, there are a lot of small cuts that can be made to cuts waste and redundancy. Sen. Hart, military and security expert, has come up with a plan for the Pentagon to focus on our REAL threat, terrorism, and cut the Pentagon budget in half in 10 years.

This would preserve our security, our social safety net and return the U.S. to fiscal sanity. Now, we just need a dictator to impose it without compromises that would render the plan less effective. j/k… sort of.