How will Democrats keep their economic promise to America?

[Wyldgusechaz]

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

I do not see how they will be able to deliver on many of their ideas.

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 98% of all income taxes. (Actually 100% most reported but I went with the lowest number I could find anywhere)

If they end the war in Iraq tomorrow that gives them $80 billion more to spend. Peanuts really in a $14 trillion economy.

What do they have to do to fulfill their commitment to the little man?

What would you be happy with?

 

[viking1]

No politicians, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will ever keep their promises. None will ever do anything for the poor working man.

I'd be happy if they just didn't promise all these campaign lies. I'd be happier yet if all politics was abolished...

 

[mindseye]

No politicians, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will ever keep their promises. None will ever do anything for the poor working man.

It's really easy to make these sweeping, cynical statements. But you can't prove that no politician "will ever keep their promises". In fact, I'll make it easier on you: Document a promise that Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) failed to keep. If you really believe that your blanket condemnation applies to everyone in politics, then showing it's true for a single politician should be easy.

Truth is, most politicians are aware these days that the things they say are recorded, shared on YouTube and other sites, and will come back to haunt them in future re-election bids. Very few of them will make a promise that they can't uphold; rather, they'll go through all sorts of semantic hoops to avoid making promises at all.

Case in point -- here are three leading presidential candidates who are all too cowardly to stick their neck out and make a commitment on one of the biggest issues facing our country.

So, anyone who is promising something -- anything! -- I'd listen to them. I'd value a candidate who could actually commit to fixing things over the wishy-washy pretenders to the throne our party is currently courting.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

How will the Dems reconcile this:

1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, com percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So people think the tax rates NOW are fairer than when Bill Clinton was President. Are Hillary and Edward's message falling on deaf ears?

 

[viking1]

It's really easy to make these sweeping, cynical statements. But you can't prove that no politician "will ever keep their promises". In fact, I'll make it easier on you: Document a promise that Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) failed to keep. If you really believe that your blanket condemnation applies to everyone in politics, then showing it's true for a single politician should be easy.

I don't live in NH, and I've never heard of her. I still stand by what I said in general. I can just about guarantee that far more promises were broken than kept by politicians over the years. I do not trust any of them.

Bill Clinton was going to have a national health care program, but he didn't do it. George H. Bush said "no new taxes" but we got more taxes. George W. Bush was going to do much for educational, and environmental issues.
He had done little to nothing for either. His "no child left behind" is nothing but a farce. A few years ago the governor of VA was going to abolish the car tax. He didn't cut spending, now all the surplus has been wasted. The car tax has been cut some, but is still there. Now they are scrambling to find a a way to make up these revenues. They will try anything that sounds good just to get elected. After the election it all changes. I seriously doubt anyone can save this country now. I fear it's way to far gone already.

Truth is, most politicians are aware these days that the things they say are recorded, shared on YouTube and other sites, and will come back to haunt them in future re-election bids. Very few of them will make a promise that they can't uphold; rather, they'll go through all sorts of semantic hoops to avoid making promises at all.

That's good. Saying nothing is better than lying, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ndVoh3SpLE

Case in point -- here are three leading presidential candidates who are all too cowardly to stick their neck out and make a commitment on one of the biggest issues facing our country.

They know that we are deep in this mess now, and pulling out cold turkey will make things worse. As well as making us look like an ass. A weak ass.
They can't pin this down until they see what can be done, and when. They know better than to say "I'll start a total pullout the day after I take office". There are to many consequences to that. They didn't make this mess, but they still have to handle it properly, or there could be grave consequences.

So, anyone who is promising something -- anything! -- I'd listen to them. I'd value a candidate who could actually commit to fixing things over the wishy-washy pretenders to the throne our party is currently courting.

We'll just have to disagree on this one. I still say silence is better than lies.

 

[viking1]

How will the Dems reconcile this:

1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, com percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So people think the tax rates NOW are fairer than when Bill Clinton was President. Are Hillary and Edward's message falling on deaf ears?

Question is, who is right? One group says one thing, and a different group says another. Who do we trust to be correct?

I don't think taxes are fair at this time, nor ever have been. I am in favor of the "fair tax" system, but I doubt I ever see any of it in my lifetime.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Question is, who is right? One group says one thing, and a different group says another. Who do we trust to be correct?

I don't think taxes are fair at this time, nor ever have been. I am in favor of the "fair tax" system, but I doubt I ever see any of it in my lifetime.

With the top 50% paying all the income tax, how much fairer could you make it? I am bewildered by what you might feel is fair. The top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes. If we went to a flat tax the taxation on the poor would go up seeing as they pay no income tax at all now.

The saying goes: "can't win for losing."

 

[Flashy]

well, i despise both of the political parties, and will not vote for either, and while the republicans are plenty despicable on a range of topics, the democrats and their "soak the rich" make them pay their "fair share" bullshit are disgracefull.

I do not think any successfull person has too much of a problem paying a progressive tax, but there is aline when it becomes purely malicious and unfair...

with a top rate of 36%, i would say the wealthy certainly pay their fair share, considering the statistics mentioned in the OP, that the richest 10% pay 70% of taxes.

Also, the inheritance taxes are simply evil...there is no justification for the absolute horror that are estate taxes...by the time all is said and done, it is bad enough how much the government takes every year from people who are successfull, even in the modest terms like pulling down a very comfortable low 6 figure salary...then those same folks, who then save their whole lives, buy a home, put their kids through college, build a nest egg and invest for the future, have to give over half of it to the government in its various guises (federal and state) while their kids get less then the government gets.

it is disgusting.

it is nothing more then state sponsored redistribution of wealth.

paying taxes is a necessary part of citizenship...being absolutely bludgeoned with taxes for succeeding is evil and unfair

 

[B_Monster]

No politicians, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will ever keep their promises. None will ever do anything for the poor working man.

I'd be happy if they just didn't promise all these campaign lies. I'd be happier yet if all politics was abolished...

I agree 100% and Ill be voting for the lesser of two evils, Democrat!

 

[Flashy]

I agree 100% and Ill be voting for the lesser of two evils, Democrat!

what's that saying about if you kill the lesser of two evils and the greater of two evils, there won't be any evil?

:smile:

vote Green or Libertarian instead of Democrat or Republican

 

[viking1]

With the top 50% paying all the income tax, how much fairer could you make it? I am bewildered by what you might feel is fair. The top 10% already pay 70% of all income taxes. If we went to a flat tax the taxation on the poor would go up seeing as they pay no income tax at all now.

The saying goes: "can't win for losing."

Not trying to be a smart ass, but have you read about the "fair tax" proposal? It's the tax on consumption that I like. That's what makes it fair.
He who consumes little pays little. That's why the VA car tax cut was bad.
A man who buys a big fancy car pays a big tax. Man who drives used junk pays little tax. Much more fair than "bracketed" income tax...

 

[viking1]

what's that saying about if you kill the lesser of two evils and the greater of two evils, there won't be any evil?

:smile:

vote Green or Libertarian instead of Democrat or Republican

The Libertarian philosophy is pretty close to my own way of seeing things.
They just don't have a chance in the election. I want my vote to the most good possible. It's a shame we can't vote our conscience without throwing away our vote now.

 

[SteveHd]

Also, the inheritance taxes are simply evil...there is no justification for the absolute horror that are estate taxes ...

I thought those were partly repealed. I thought it was a limited time ... a number of years ... I forgot how many. Did the repeal expire and the taxes become effective again?

 

[viking1]

well, i despise both of the political parties, and will not vote for either, and while the republicans are plenty despicable on a range of topics, the democrats and their "soak the rich" make them pay their "fair share" bullshit are disgracefull.

I do not think any successfull person has too much of a problem paying a progressive tax, but there is aline when it becomes purely malicious and unfair...

with a top rate of 36%, i would say the wealthy certainly pay their fair share, considering the statistics mentioned in the OP, that the richest 10% pay 70% of taxes.

Also, the inheritance taxes are simply evil...there is no justification for the absolute horror that are estate taxes...by the time all is said and done, it is bad enough how much the government takes every year from people who are successfull, even in the modest terms like pulling down a very comfortable low 6 figure salary...then those same folks, who then save their whole lives, buy a home, put their kids through college, build a nest egg and invest for the future, have to give over half of it to the government in its various guises (federal and state) while their kids get less then the government gets.

it is disgusting.

it is nothing more then state sponsored redistribution of wealth.

paying taxes is a necessary part of citizenship...being absolutely bludgeoned with taxes for succeeding is evil and unfair

I agree completely.

There is no such thing as a tax on a business. Tax business and the business raises prices to make it up. More tax on the rich (fair or not), is the same. The rich own all the big businesses. The consumer pays all tax, one way or the other. Just like the attempt to put a heavy toll on trucks to pay for improvements to the interstate system. Who will really pay that?
The trucking companies? The shippers? No, the consumers. The cost of freight will rise to offset the tolls. Everything you use come on a truck...

 

[Flashy]

I thought those were party repealed. I thought it was a limited time ... a number of years ... I forgot how many. Did the repeal expire and the taxes become effective again?

I believe they have...they were never made permanent .

i know there is an exemption of a certain amount...but the laws themselves are absurd and unfair.

income tax...yes...estate tax...totally unfair.

 

[Flashy]

The Libertarian philosophy is pretty close to my own way of seeing things.
They just don't have a chance in the election. I want my vote to the most good possible. It's a shame we can't vote our conscience without throwing away our vote now.

my philosophy is that voting for what is right is never a wasted vote.

:smile:

I wish there could be an agreement made, between say, 3 million republicans and 3 million democrats...the kind of folks who do not want to vote for these two "machines", but see no alternative...and each of those voters would cast their votes for the green or the libertarians...depending on hteir philosophies...

we desperately need more political parties...things are awful.

either that, or someone with some great vision, and leadership, who could convince the center right and the center left, of the repubs and dems to split off, and form a party that moderates can believe in...


i hate both of these corrupt despicable failing gluttonous parties

 

[mindseye]

I don't live in NH, and I've never heard of her. I still stand by what I said in general.

So, you stand by what you say without getting the facts? You said all politicians break their promises; I countered with, "Okay, here's a politician -- show me a promise she broke"; and you've declined to support your point. I'll give you a second chance. You've mentioned Virginia; cite a promise that Governor Kaine has broken. You have heard of this politician, right?

Bill Clinton was going to have a national health care program, but he didn't do it.

Yes, he did. On November 20, 1993 -- ten months into his first term, he kept his promise by presenting a proposal to Congress. (source) Supporters of the proposal did not have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the proposal was defeated. During his second term, he approved a much weaker plan than the one he had originally envisioned. (source)

Are you suggesting that Clinton should be held accountable for the actions of Congress? Well, damn him for impeaching himself, then!

 

[Not_Punny]

I agree. Abolish the income tax and tax consumption instead.

And while we're at it, let's abolish morality laws, and turn all those "extra" policemen into border patrols.

Oh, and all those "extra" IRS employees can become tutors to help abolish literacy problems in schools.

There. We just fixed a lot of problems in America.

Oh... and while I'm on a roll, let's eliminate employee tax (other than SS and Medicare) so that small and medium business can hire more people. What with employee tax and worker's comp, it is UNBELIEVABLY expensive to hire people.

 

[HazelGod]

Yes, he did. On November 20, 1993 -- ten months into his first term, he kept his promise by presenting a proposal to Congress. (source) Supporters of the proposal did not have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the proposal was defeated. During his second term, he approved a much weaker plan than the one he had originally envisioned. (source)

An excellent illustration of why the vast majority of presidential campaign promises are stupid in principle as well as on their faces...and why the voting public should not fixate on such promises when determining their choice.

The POTUS doesn't get a magic wand when he takes office that makes his every wish a reality. He has to put his ideas in front of 535 other squabbling, partisan jackasses for approval...each of whom has his own regional interests and personal aspirations...and if they can't come to a consensus on it, then it goes nowhere.

Think about every campaign promise you hear in those terms. Will this person be able to effectively sell that idea to a majority of 535 other politicians?

One notable exception: policy changes within the Executive itself. The president has almost complete autonomy in the structure and performance of this branch of government, which includes the Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, and numerous other favorite agencies.

 

[viking1]

So, you stand by what you say without getting the facts? You said all politicians break their promises; I countered with, "Okay, here's a politician -- show me a promise she broke"; and you've declined to support your point. I'll give you a second chance. You've mentioned Virginia; cite a promise that Governor Kaine has broken. You have heard of this politician, right?

Yes, I've heard of Kaine. I have no idea what promises were included in his campaign propaganda. I don't decided who to vote for based on their campaign promises. I do know about some of the more notable promises that weren't kept by various elected officials over the years. I vote on who I think will do the best job. I look at liberal, moderate, or conservative.
Their stand on taxes, Whether they have radical or extreme views, etc.
I've just heard a lot about VA governor Gilmore's car tax boondoggle.
I no longer pay any attention to campaign promises for the purpose of deciding who to vote for.

For the record, this isn't about democrat vs republican for me in this argument. I don't like either party, or politics and politicians in general.

Yes, he did. On November 20, 1993 -- ten months into his first term, he kept his promise by presenting a proposal to Congress. (source) Supporters of the proposal did not have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and the proposal was defeated. During his second term, he approved a much weaker plan than the one he had originally envisioned. (source)

Are you suggesting that Clinton should be held accountable for the actions of Congress? Well, damn him for impeaching himself, then!

If you don't know that you can do something, you shouldn't say you are going to do it. His party was in control, and that says a lot about working together. All politicians have their own agenda: stay rich and in power.
That need supercedes all others. I'm not just picking at Clinton. We haven't had good leadership in this country for many years.