I don't get it.
Obama and the Democrats want to lower taxes for ***98%*** of Americans.
He wants to raise revenue by increasing taxes for those who make OVER $250K. That equates to 2% of Americans.
So, the question I beg an answer: why are 40-50% of Americans NOT willing to pass this tax increase for only 2% of the population? Those folks who are already lucky?
I guess I'm super perplexed that there is even a DEBATE! What for????
How are ANY Americans supportive of the Republican agenda when it is so IN YOUR FACE that they only care about the 2%?????
Someone please enlighten me!!!
In Europe, especially in the first 6 months of a CLEAR victory, to the victor goes the spoils.
Ive asked myself the same thing over and over again and I have to say that although I love the american culture and Americans I have noticed with my American friends that most dont seem to be used to really think into things...I dont believe that Americans are actually stupid but I believe that for some reason proper questioning and looking into things is not something they do.
Because somehow the masses have been brainwashed into thinking that rich, mainly white of course, people should be immune from taxes.
Try living here.
Many of these voters are under the delusion that maybe SOMEDAY if they are responsible and work hard then they TOO will be members of the rarefied elite 2%.
They feel they are protecting their future self-interest.
This is because most Americans think that they might be rich some day and, when they are rich, they don't want their taxes to go up.
What he said
I thought about this alot as Ive recently been on a vaction with my crush an American and alot of the times it seemed like he is stupid or has no short time memory...I have a feeling that Americans respond or react alot to things depending on how they feel right at that moment and not acording to facts and reality. Whtas going on over there?
OP = one of the top 2%
has Fox truly brainwashed the masses?
I tuned in the other day and could not believe my ears and eyes: nothing but bullshit about Benghazi. UNREAL!
It's a very American case of Stockholm syndrome.
r8, and if I am?
The point remains the same. There should be no debate. None.
98% of Americans should support a President's plan that directly aids them.
The 2% should act like human beings and agree. Slightly raising the taxes of the 2% is nothing compared to the advantages the 98% will receive.
Why is there a daily discussion? Cycling through the same talking points 24/7.
I can't figure it out either, and I'm American. Maybe part of it has to do with the anti-Communism hysteria of the 50's and 60's. I think it's also what R4 says, that average working-class Americans harbor the delusion that they will be one percenters. Our working class has generally been very right wing, as opposed to England, for example. My partner (who is English) had a friend who was a working class guy and he was practically a Communist by American standards. If he had been American, he would have been Archie Bunker.
Actually, 2/3 of Americans are in favor of tax rate increases on the upper 2%. It's the Republican party that's stupid.
Now, why can the Republican leadership get away with this, why is the country stupid to even indulge them, and why do 1/3 of Americans support 1/50 of Americans getting such a windfall?
It's because for decades a great many Americans have been conditioned to believe that any thing approximated economic fairness is a pie in the sky lie, not good for our status in the world, and will open the floodgates to a dystopian form of Communism. This has roots in Cold War hysteria, in the supply side economics of the Reagan years (which are only now being questioned by the majority of Americans), and in the myth of American individualism.
Then there is the fact that these increases only restore those that existed under Clinton. But they are now associated with Obama. Obama is a black guy from Honolulu (if that is even acknowledged). Clinton is a good old white boy from Arkansas.
Finally, there is the American education system which is a disaster. Many Americans are not well versed in what is going on in the world, in our own country, and even lack the analytical skills of processing information of national interest.
Case in point. 49% of Republicans blame the non-profit group Acorn for stealing the 2012 election for Obama.
Acorn no longer exists.
R12 you must be joking right? The BNP is comprised of mostly working class whites. In addition have you ever heard of the working man(equivalent to Reagan Democrats)who voted for Thatcher? I've met working class Tories in Britain and they still exist.
I have said for years that many people are not even aware that thinking is an option available to them.
but why is it so common in America? a developed, rich country?
The xenophobia on the display here and the idiocy in general tells me that even if it were explained to you that most of you still would not give it.
Sure, R14, my partner's parents were Tories who voted for Thatcher. His father got sent to Coventry for being a scab. (When he told me, I said, "Coventry? Is that nice?").
However, I maintain that by and large, the English working class is far less likely to be voting against a social safety net than the American working class who wouldn't even call themselves working class. What kills me is union members and government workers who are Republican. Hypocrites!
There's been a deliberate dumbing down of America; that's the reason education has become an increasingly lower priority and is always one of the first areas hit hardest when budgets are cut.
Older people in the U.S. can immediately answer the question who was their best teacher. Especially fortunate people have more than one answer. It's rare when a younger person can answer the question.
We desperately need better teachers who are allowed to teach without being stifled by politics and helicopter parents.
College is increasingly affordable only to those who have money. It used to be easier to work one's way through college. Non-wealthy students graduate with a mountain of debt and a dwindling number of good jobs.
Education has suffered so badly in the U.S. in the past few decades, it doesn't seem possible it's a fluke. Apparently the concept of a well-educated population has become negative rather than positive.
Instead of education and a better quality of life, U.S. citizens are treated like toddlers; we're being given distracting gadgets and trinkets and constant mind-numbing entertainment.
Most people in the U.S. now depend on television news as their source of information. We couldn't find a worse information source if we tried. I don't know about all areas of the country, but where I live local news is loaded with misinformation and there's almost nothing about the true workings of local politics.
National news is even worse. The true journalists are gone and in their place are trained monkeys who regurgitate propaganda being fed to them by their masters.
We don't have BBC or Al Jazeera in the U.S. We do have PBS, which is far better than most national news sources, but it's not entertaining enough for most people because it ignores Hollywood gossip and neglects the distracting and salacious crime of the day. Our masses need to know who Angelina Jolie is banging to titillate us. We also need to know about the latest mother who has killed her child so we can summon our blood lust and keep ourselves all worked up while we pretend to be concerned. Hiding behind the gossip and the public flogging of the criminal of the day is all of the information required to maintain a true democracy, or a republic if you prefer.
What r4 and r5 said. The American Dream.
You won't find a wiki entry on the French Dream.
Abundance, freedom, growth, frontiers, second chances, God's chosen.
And the latest components: American Exceptionalism and the Prosperity Gospel.
It's ingrained from birth and can have its strongest hold in the self-satisfied burghers.
And they'll be damned if they'll let some poor people raise taxes on the riches they're sure to receive next year.
"Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that's why...they will follow us...to the RIGHT!"
"I've met working class Tories in Britain and they still exist."
[quote]Many of these voters are under the delusion that maybe SOMEDAY if they are responsible and work hard then they TOO will be members of the rarefied elite 2%.
That's what one of the queens said at the GOProud fundraiser for Romney back in August. When asked why he was supporting Romney, he said, "I want to be filthy rich and I think the Republicans can get me there."
Don't forget the old "American self-reliance" shit. If you talk to some of those idiots they think you should build your own damn house, etc. as if we could still go out and cut down trees anywhere we want. I think they're stuck back in the pioneer days when you actually could do that.
Well he's half right...r25
what r20 said.
I was looking for the study, but couldn't find it.
One theory is that, no matter how poor you are, you will not vote for anything that benefits people poorer than you for fear that you will lose your advantage.
Everyone in this country claims to be hard-working and busy, busy, busy. They don't want lazy (brown) people to get benefits until they've worked for them. They don't want to hire these people because they believe them to be lazy.
It gets better! Employers do not want to hire new college grads because they are entitled and inexperienced. They do not want to hire older workers because they do not have the 'right' skills and cost more in benefits. They do not want to hire the prime-earning age workers because they are inexperienced.
We experienced a jobless 'recovery' because we made everything so fucking efficient in the '90s - the jobs don't need to come back because we automated the shit out of everything.
So, we're in a quandary. The only people making themselves heard are powerful white men who will be dead within 15 years. They don't want to pay the tab.
We're fucked. We've been fucked before and we'll be fucked again.
It's why we win wars: we're dumb enough to do stupid shit that nobody in their right minds would attempt.
Approximately 47% of us are just plain stupid.
[quote]In Europe, especially in the first 6 months of a CLEAR victory, to the victor goes the spoils.
Because in Europe, they have the parliamentary system where the leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes Prime Minister. In the US there's that weird disconnect which can result in a president being of a different party from the majority party in the congress. It's dysfunctional.
I disagree, R31. That has always been an important part of the system of checks and balances. It was set in place to prevent any political party or ideology from taking over the country.
LOL. It is fun watching you guys desperately try figure it out and coming up with xenophobic generalizations and hilariously cynical explanations like "the poor want to see other poor people do even worse." Most of the people who do not support the tax hike are not "poor" in the first place. To try to explain it to you would just be a waste of time, not just because of your lack of intellectual development, but since the format of these boards does not allow for an in-depth discussion anyways which is necessary for understanding. Here is a hint though: if you have come here more than once for "pointless bitchery" and "gay gossip," YOU are the dumb people you think you are not.
Disagree all you want, r32. It's a plain and simple fact that this check and/or balance has resulted in a deadlock. It's ridiculous that a president can't even control the country's finances.
Oh and if you think the US isn't "taken over" by a particular ideology already you're delusional.
[quote}To try to explain it to you would just be a waste of time, not just because of your lack of intellectual development
OK smartass, enlighten us dolts then.
R33 you can have fun with pointless bitchery and gossip and still enjoy politics and I would think most people go to many other sources for their viewpoints. Hopefully, not mainstream news though.
R34 = has never taken a class in civics or government.
OP, I do wish you'd stop insulting Americans as a people. The answer to why some are afraid to tax the wealthiest so severely is because they will shelter their money in foreign offshore accounts. They'll also opt for outsourcing resulting in loss of funds for the government (and us) while denying Americans jobs. This is just one of the many reasons. I think it is important to realize who the wealthiest people are. Very rare that they've earned it in their lifetimes. It is mostly inherited and the work of wise money management for generations. They intend for their descendents to prosper from the legacy. This is why they don't intend on helping the government fix the problems of the masses. They feel their funds help the public enough with creating jobs and philanthropy. They want to decide for themselves on how to spread their good fortune, not the current administrations in power. Keep this in mind while looking to understand the big picture. It really sheds a lot of light on the situation and why education is so important to some. If you've been educated the questions were answered for you by the time you hit the 30 year mark. You see things so much differently and clearly. Anger and wonderment are replaced by understanding. That's the difference between the educated and uneducated. That is why we choose to surround ourselves with other educated people. It is tiring to have to explain how the world works to those who never sought out higher education. Education is not always about landing a cushy job. It really goes so much deeper.
Just look at the top 10 songs and TV show in America today and you will get the answer to "Are Americans just plain f________ stupid"
[quote]This has roots in Cold War hysteria, in the supply side economics of the Reagan years (which are only now being questioned by the majority of Americans)
This needs to be stressed more. This is a major development, and it's a very good thing.
Finally, FINALLY, the idiotic 'trickle-down, supply-side' economic policies that Republicans have been using to scam the American people with for over 30 years are being questioned by John Q. Public. Anyone with half a brain, of course, knew it was all horseshit from the beginning but now the average (read: uneducated, country-music lovin' red state white redneck) Americans are actually beginning to realize what a scam it is. It took a long, long time but better late than never.
Of course, it also is changing because the John McCain/Clint Eastwood generation is really dying off now and younger people tend to skew more liberal.
Those are already current practice, at a time when personal and corporate tax rates are at historical lows, and have been for the past decade.
It also has a lot to do with our media, which seems to no longer have a goal of actually informing voters. A plurality of voters actually believes that the "fiscal cliff" will increase the deficit! Damn few of them actually know what the "fiscal cliff" is and how/why it came about.
That same misinformation extends to other areas. Romney/Ryan, for example, were more trusted in some polls to save Medicare, despite the simple fact that their proposal was to destroy it. It's not at all surprising that US voters are simply misinformed and do not have a good grasp of the issues.
Oh, and R33? Bring it on. You and your cohorts were wholly unable to do that during the campaign. I doubt you'll be able to do any better now.
"It's why we win wars: we're dumb enough to do stupid shit that nobody in their right minds would attempt."
What wars have we "won" recently?
Because he's BLAA -
Well, you know.
I do blame the media. Where are true journalists?
Candy Crowley sputtered a FACT and she has death threats? Huh????
In Europe the republicans would have chosen the president because they won most of the seats in the legislature. Duh.
It's because a lot of Americans think they don't have a voice.
As one who considers politics a contact sport - I'm all too aware of what goes on, plus I vote every election. Even worked on a campaign or two.
Simple answer. YES.
I agree with the OP. When Bush won in 2004 the Dems should have caved and allowed him to transform the Social Security system into 401K style accounts.
I also agree with OP. When Bush won in 2004 on a platform that included a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage the Dems should have caved and voted for it.
Oh wait. . .
I also agree with OP. When Scott Walker became governor of WI the Dems in the state house shouldn't have put up a fight when he stripped the unions of their rights.
Oh wait. . .
See the Grammys for more proof of the current state of the USA.
The vast majority of you on this thread are insulting American intelligence, but I think you miss a big issue in taxation. There are 2 kinds of rich people:
- There are people who get up & go to work everyday, and happen to make >$250k. If the rates go back up, with state taxes (most of those people live in high tax states like NY/CA), their marginal rates will be over 50% and their total rate will be close to 50%. I personally think taking 50% of anyone's income is wrong, and in any case a lot of it will just get passed on to you -- think doctors.
- There are people who collect cap gains. That's the rate that should go up. Keeping it low encourages people to play games shifting income between ordinary & cap gains.
BTW, do you know who stops the change to the rule that allows hedge fund managers to be taxed at cap gain rates instead of ordinary rates? CHUCK SCHUMER.
[quote]their marginal rates will be over 50% and their total rate will be close to 50%. I personally think taking 50% of anyone's income is wrong
1. That only applies to the portion of their income that is above $250,000, not to their whole income. A doctor making $260,000 will only see $10,000 of their income taxes at the higher rate.
2. That higher rate is only four percentage points. I'm having a really hard time caring.
3. We've taken far more than that in the past, and with a healthier economy as a result. I personally think that taking 50% of income in this case is just fine.
R20 hit the nail on the head.
Because the right has sold snow to eskimos by getting the conservative middle class to believe that if the rich are taxed higher they will take it out on the less rich. Less jobs, Less money spent..it's the trickle down theory. The better the rich do the better the rest of us do. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the US has flat out said he does not pay enough taxes.
[quote]Are Americans just plain fucking stupid??
Short answer - yes.
R20 sounds like he has a brain.
Perhaps Obama should stop spending money like a drunken sailor....
but he has no intention of ever doing so.
Thanks R54 for the lucidity.
R55, R54 here:
"That only applies to the portion of their income that is above $250,000, not to their whole income. "
Yes, that's what the word "marginal" means.
"That higher rate is only four percentage points. I'm having a really hard time caring."
"We've taken far more than that in the past, and with a healthier economy as a result. I personally think that taking 50% of income in this case is just fine."
They take even higher percentages in the socialist countries in Europe -- and we are going to see how that works out. Spain is already a disaster, can't meet it's social welfare obligations; France is next. Within 2 yrs, they will be out in the streets in France just like Greece.
By the way, if you don't know it, if you are under 50, you're not getting Medicare. Raising the top rates is not going to save you.
simple question: why is there a debate?
Why are Americans listening to the brown-faced cry-baby and the Turtleman?
They are protecting 2% of the population while 98% suffers.
I don't get it. Why the fuss??? Just how dumb is the electorate?
A ericans think they're hoy shit because they own 50" TVs and bloated SUVs, but the middle of the country and the South are as dumb as dog shit. Always have been and, I fear, always will be.
Raising taxes by 4% for the over $250,000 crowd will do nothing to help the economy. We have enough money, the problem is Uncle Sam overspending.
R63, the question should be how dumb are you?
Several great points have already been made on this thread. Short answer: there is no one answer.
Thank you, Gilda Gotrocks.
r66, what a cunt you are.
One reason, OP, is that people have been convinced that the rich are the ones who create all the jobs and if they have to pay more taxes, they won't be able to hire more people. Studies have shown, however, that this is definitely not the case. But it makes sense to a lot of the ignorant.
Then you have the christian right and the tea party-types, who believe that they are "entitled" to keep every penny they earn, figuring that the government just squanders their money. Of course they forget about roads, water lines, trash removal and other infrastructure and services. Honestly, a coworker of mine gets email after email full of propaganda from Focus on the Family. She also listens to their shows on AM radio.
[quote]Raising taxes by 4% for the over $250,000 crowd will do nothing to help the economy.
It's not intended to; it's intended to help the deficit, which it will.
[quote]We have enough money, the problem is Uncle Sam overspending
Oh, garbage. Taxes are at a historic low and will need to be raised. If you're serious about the deficit, which most Republicans are not, this is a no-brainer.
The rich want to be richer so they manipulate the public to think the black guy is going to screw them. FOX is their vehicle to do so. If u watch FOX, your view of the world is not reality and they take advantage of those who will not bother to be informed.
If there was a stupidity test and you couldn't t vote unless u showed that u understood facts then this country would be so different now.
[quote]They take even higher percentages in the socialist countries in Europe -- and we are going to see how that works out. Spain is already a disaster, can't meet it's social welfare obligations; France is next. Within 2 yrs, they will be out in the streets in France just like Greece.
Sigh.... And the Scandinavian countries, which take at least that much, are doing just fine. Did you have a point?
[quote]By the way, if you don't know it, if you are under 50, you're not getting Medicare.
That depends on whether we get sane people in Congress. Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives, controls costs better than the private alternatives, and is more popular than the private alternatives.
[quote]Raising the top rates is not going to save you.
It's a good start. Medicare for all would be an even better continuation.
Most Americans work for small business, not global corporations and the government taxes small business heavily.
Corporations are the ones who can get the loopholes and not pay taxes, it's the small mom and pop shops who have to compete with them AND pay higher taxes.
Many people are anti-government and the mindset in this country is that Republicans are anti-government and Democrats are pro-government. Although often the reverse is true.
You can't tax THE JOB CREATORS!!!
Or else they won't trickle down all over us!!!
Most Americans don't want to tax the rich because they think they are eventually going to be one of the rich.
(When everyone is a millionaire, the price of a Big Mac becomes $1 Million each)
"Sigh.... And the Scandinavian countries, which take at least that much, are doing just fine. Did you have a point?"
Norway has oil, they can afford anything. Sweden is not as great as you think it is -- see Canada. And like Canada, it is much smaller, pop. 9.5M, so it can control costs more easily.
" "By the way, if you don't know it, if you are under 50, you're not getting Medicare." "
"That depends on whether we get sane people in Congress. Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives, controls costs better than the private alternatives, and is more popular than the private alternatives."
You are clueless. It is more popular than private alternatives because people don't have to pay for it. & cheaper because the gov't is paying for it with fake $$. And it is not going to be there in 20yrs.
My mother just died at age 88. She spent the last 8 years of her life fighting off medical treatment -- the doctors always wanted to send her for useless tests so they could collect referral fees.
And if you think the way to solve our problems is to get more "sane" people into Congress -- ie, Democrats -- then answer this:
Why is EVERY bankrupt, corrupt, $h!!-hole city in this country not just run but completely dominated by the Dems?
Raising the rates on the top 2 percent raises 86 BILLION. Our current deficit is 1.2 TRILLION.
Anyone who thinks this solves the debt issue are idiots.
God, I hate the troll who thinks using all caps is a good way to emphasize words.
You mean to tell me one group of people want another group of people to be taxed but not themselves? You could knock me over with a feather. When you can vote yourself someone else's money, that's a problem. Besides the fact that REVENUES go UP when taxes are cut..for everyone, especially the richest. On the outside you'd think it would be the opposite..if you haven't done your research. It's also funny to see amateurs talk about how the top 1 or 2% being taxed more would fix the budget/eliminate the debt..when in reality if you took ALL their money it wouldn't fix our budget/debt. Besides the fact that you'd be screwing yourselves out of future tax monies.
It's also sad that a lot of you have more respect for illegal aliens and treat them more as brothers than 100% of Americans (which includes the bottom 1% AND top 1%).
Secondly, in modern America there is hardly a "clear victory". What we call a landslide today is really on a handful of percentage points. There are no major majorities in this country. It flips one way or the other 50 some to late 40 something.
[quote]Raising the rates on the top 2 percent raises 86 BILLION. Our current deficit is 1.2 TRILLION. Anyone who thinks this solves the debt issue are idiots.
so, it's just nonsense on both sides? I don't think so. You have to start somewhere.
I say out the closet cases like Lindsay Graham.
Raise the taxes on the top 2%.
And help your fellow man.
STOP WATCHING FOX!
Don't the people realize that within the 2% their are thousand of small businesses that gross over 250,000 dollars a year. they will be forced to lay off many of this workers because of the small proffit margin. This class warfare is driving a terrible wedge in the population. I did not see one anti tax post. what is wrong with the general population?
You are trying to bullshit us by confusing $250,000 in annual sales before expenses with $250,000 in personal income to a single owner. Very few "small businesses" have personal income to the owner of $250,000 or more.
[quote]Raising the rates on the top 2 percent raises 86 BILLION. Our current deficit is 1.2 TRILLION. Anyone who thinks this solves the debt issue are idiots.
Good thing nobody thinks that or has said that, then, isn't it? Got any more strawman arguments you'd like to make?
This is just a down-payment. After that, we can talk about the estate tax, the capital gains tax, and others. As for the "1.2 TRILLION" (ooh, scary all-caps!), a lot of that simply disappears as the economy recovers.
Correct, R84. R83 is spouting bullshit. The real impact on small businesses is that something like 3% of them will be affected.
[quote]I did not see one anti tax post.
When taxes are at historic lows and when income inequality is at historic highs, why on earth would anyone be "anti tax?"
[quote]what is wrong with the general population?
Not a damn thing, since the overwhelming majority of Americans favor Obama's proposals. It's just the idiotic 33% who don't.
The President is going to approve a deal that raises the Medicare age and retains the lion’s share of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Polls show that a strong majority of Americans agree with President Obama on the issue of taxes. The impasse is the House of Representatives, which, thanks to some truly astounding gerrymandering, is still GOP-controlled, though most of the country voted for Democrats.
[quote]Norway has oil, they can afford anything.
So do we, and so can we.
[quote]Sweden is not as great as you think it is -- see Canada. And like Canada, it is much smaller, pop. 9.5M, so it can control costs more easily.
Sigh.... You realize that this is just nonsensical, right? It's *easier* to control costs in larger populations, not harder. And we're talking about per capita expenses, which means your point is moot.
In any case, there is no correlation between the level of "socialism" and the degree to which a country's economy has suffered. Your whole point was simply nonsense.
[quote]You are clueless.
ROFL.... Oh, the irony....
[quote]It is more popular than private alternatives because people don't have to pay for it.
Nope, it's popular because it works.
[quote& cheaper because the gov't is paying for it with fake $$.
You really don't know anything, do you? Medicare is cheaper than the private alternatives and over the past 50 years has controlled costs better than the private alternatives, which is why you can't support the bullshit you're spewing.
[quote]And it is not going to be there in 20yrs.
Again, that depends on whether we have sane people in charge. Actually, I suspect you're wrong, since the U.S. cannot afford to continue its current insane health policies. Medical costs are eating up over 17% of our GDP, a number that is going to continue to climb. We cannot sustain that. And the only way to bring it down is to institute some form of what the rest of the world uses.
[Irrelevant anecdote deleted.]
[quote]And if you think the way to solve our problems is to get more "sane" people into Congress -- ie, Democrats -- then answer this: Why is EVERY bankrupt, corrupt, $h!!-hole city in this country not just run but completely dominated by the Dems?
Well, mostly because that statement is false, just as is the rest of the drivel you're vomiting up.
[quote]As for the "1.2 TRILLION" (ooh, scary all-caps!), a lot of that simply disappears as the economy recovers.
Lol. You've been reading too much Paul Krugman.
A lot of you on here are just as bad as the Bible Belt social conservatives who vote based on abortion. You, too, vote based only on social issues. I'm gay, but I can do arithmetic -- and the country is bankrupt.
[quote]Besides the fact that REVENUES go UP when taxes are cut...for everyone, especially the richest.
No, they don't, actually.
[quote]On the outside you'd think it would be the opposite..if you haven't done your research.
Oh, the irony....
[quote]It's also funny to see amateurs talk about how the top 1 or 2% being taxed more would fix the budget/eliminate the debt..
And another lame strawman argument, since nobody is claiming that.
[quote]when in reality if you took ALL their money it wouldn't fix our budget/debt.
Good thing nobody is asking for that or claiming that, then, isn't it? Care to actually address what people are saying?
[quote]Lol. You've been reading too much Paul Krugman.
Sigh.... Considering his track record, that wouldn't be a bad thing. In any case, no; I was referring to the CBO estimates and to the estimates from both parties and from every major economist.
[quote]A lot of you on here are just as bad as the Bible Belt social conservatives who vote based on abortion. You, too, vote based only on social issues.
Um, no, actually I don't. I vote on all issues. The Republican economic policies simply make no sense at all.
[quote]I'm gay, but I can do arithmetic
Apparently not, given your posts here.
[quote]and the country is bankrupt.
Look at the percentage of taxes the upper income earners ALREADY pay. The way this government spends the increase revenue brought in by increasing the tax rate will run the government for 10 days. Talk to a family with two professional wage earners. Most make combined income of close to $250K. Tell them they are wealthy. GW Bush increased the percentage of people paying NO federal tax by 20%.
[quote]Look at the percentage of taxes the upper income earners ALREADY pay.
We have. Look at the percentage of the nation's wealth the upper income earners ALREADY have.
[quote]The way this government spends the increase revenue brought in by increasing the tax rate will run the government for 10 days.
*shrug* You could say that about just about any individual revenue source. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
[quote]Talk to a family with two professional wage earners. Most make combined income of close to $250K.
Oh, garbage. Do you really not know how to look at the median family income? Or know just where the "2%" number came from? Free clue: 2% isn't "most," even for families with "two professional wage earners." In any case, if they do make "close to $250K," guess what? They won't be affected!
[quote]Tell them they are wealthy.
Happily. Next idiotic statement?
[quote]GW Bush increased the percentage of people paying NO federal tax by 20%.
And another moron who can't seem to understand that there is more than one federal tax.
R94 you prove the pont it's tough to argue with a Socialist. Either you are already getting some sort of government assistance or you are a underachiever who blames others because of your failures in life. Either way, pretty sad.
[quote]you prove the pont it's tough to argue with a Socialist.
Well, there's only one problem: I'm not a "Socialist." Frankly, I doubt you know the meaning of the word.
In any case, it isn't at all difficult to argue, so long as you know what you're talking about. It appears that you do not, since you chose to attack me rather than try to address what I wrote or try to back up what you originally wrote. You can't, of course, since what you wrote was not only false, it was stupidly false.
[quote]Either you are already getting some sort of government assistance or you are a underachiever who blames others because of your failures in life. Either way, pretty sad.
R13 and R20 are spot-on. I also wonder if, with Obama as president, there's some incipient racism going on - people would rather, albeit even subconciously, associate with Republicans - Boehner? who are by and large white.
"Very few "small businesses" have personal income to the owner of $250,000 or more."
Doctors, lawyers, some consultants--any small business that revolves around the expertise of one individual (the owner) who is assisted by a small office staff.
But you would be correct in saying that businesses of the retail, manufacturing variety--where the owners are managers--typically don't have high-earning owners.
Half of them certainly. Often think delusional dogs, suffering from poverty and neglect, biting at anything.
Most have no idea what 'rich' is, and blame the other poor. It is a slave country, like most, but fanastic denial operating.
Tribal primitives. Culture-wide ADD. Reactive, trusting God will protect them from Sandy, Katrina, so do not have to take protective steps despite warnings.
But better crop coming up, I think, now that pain and fear of yuppies and Bush monsters subsiding. Cooperative over competitive in many young men I meet. Not all, but more than ten years ago.
Gun mad, boy toys dominate.
Americans just can't compare to Europeans.
Americans are lazy, dumb and low class. They will never catch up to Europeans in a thousand years.
Americans are Cattle. Ask Noam Chomsky.
R20 beat me to it. very well said.
Well we don't have a king or a queen. Monarchies are very stupid. And as hard as it may be to believe, women have more parity in the US than anywhere else - with the possible exception of Sweden. Socialism is the only system of government that's not stupid, but I'm sure DL'ers are just as terrified as the rest of America of socialism. I base my opinions of the jobs I've had all over the world, and yes, I'm a woman so I have a particular sensitivity to gender bias, especially in terms of equal pay for equal work.
Oh right. Europeans are so classy. Why don't you read some European newspapers and find out the kind of stomach-churning crimes committed against children, people of color, women and GAYs before you try to convince anyone of the sophistication and class you believe are on display abroad. Grow up and travel a bit more before you start spouting these played-out cliches that are not based in fact.
R106 well said. One would be surprised at how xenophobic some Europeans are. And how backwards as well.If you met some Greeks in America you'd think it's the greatest place in the world when in fact it's a homophobic shithole!