The Latest Tax Cuts For the Rich

[helgaleena]

Tax Cuts for the Rich on the Backs of the Middle Class; or, Paul Ryan Has Balls | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy

The tone of this piece is a bit incendiary, but it contains facts.
'What he doesn’t mention is that Ryan’s proposal also includes dropping the top tax rate for rich people from 35 percent to 25 percent. All by itself, that one change means that the government would be collecting over $4 trillion less over the next ten years.
Since Brooks himself is talking about Ryan’s plan cutting $4 trillion over the next ten years (some say that number is higher), what we’re really talking about here is an ambitious program to cut taxes for people like… well, people like me and David Brooks, and paying for it by “consolidating job-training programs” and forcing old people to accept reduced Medicare benefits.'

 

[deleted15807]

Ludicrous and Cruel

 

[Who_Dun_It]

I still can't believe people are stupid enough to buy into that plan, I mean the whole 10% tax cut thing alone is just plain ludicrous. How the hell do they expect to pay off any of the deficit when they have even less money coming in?

 

[B_crackoff]

Personally, I believe in the "trickle up" method of taxation!

 

[Who_Dun_It]

Same here, Eisenhower Era trickle up any more too!

 

[SilverTrain]

How long will ignorant, undereducated simpletons cheerlead for the very politicians that are aiming to take away as much of the simpletons' wealth and social status as possible?

It is an astounding situation.

 

[Who_Dun_It]

I kinda take offense to that Silvertrain, I technically could be considered one of those and I'm not that stupid:redface: :tongue:

 

[arkfarmbear]

The rich should be able to afford legal and financial guidance so as not to owe any taxes. Texas does not tax earnings and they lead the nation financiallly. Other states should take notice.

 

[Who_Dun_It]

There's something else that needs fixing, get rid of those damn loopholes too!

 

[citr]

How long will ignorant, undereducated simpletons cheerlead for the very politicians that are aiming to take away as much of the simpletons' wealth and social status as possible?

It is an astounding situation.

Until the same five media conglomerates no longer dominate our political discourse and effectively set the terms of debate.

There should be no such thing as a "media empire."

 

[deleted15807]

Texas does not tax earnings and they lead the nation financiallly. Other states should take notice.

PLEASE elaborate on how Texas leads the nation 'financiallly'. We can play word games all day long and 'lead' the nation.

Texas Republicans deny budget crisis exists

 

[B_VinylBoy]

How long will ignorant, undereducated simpletons cheerlead for the very politicians that are aiming to take away as much of the simpletons' wealth and social status as possible?

The underlined is the key word. Undereducated. At least when it comes to what goes on in our Congress.

As our country "progresses" and legions of the unenlightened continue to grow and degenerate our social core, the more I start thinking about other countries where it's a federal law to vote. In our country, it's still an option so people choose to be as informed (or uninformed) as they please. That's why in the midst of economic discussions and issues surrounding Libya, we still hear garbage about birth certificates and the clueless yelps from folks moved by political buzzwords. If it was a requirement I'd think people would pay more attention to what's going on. Many of the same countries that have a federal requirement to vote can recognize and articulate thought provoking insight regarding our nation's issues (like it's really that difficult on some levels) as well as deal with issues in their own country. Besides the obvious voices of sanity in the Politics section, I can't remember how many times I've travelled to a different country and was able to listen to an honest and factually logical opinion about American Politics.

But that's just a random thought being tossed in the air. I know something like that would never be advocated in our country.

 

[phillyhangin]

But that's just a random thought being tossed in the air. I know something like that would never be advocated in our country.

It's just a shame that people feel that they are entitled to the benefits of society but are not required to contribute anything in return for those benefits. I personally feel that we should be required to vote - and that the political system should be required to give us candidates worth voting for.

I also feel that there should be a "None of the above" option on the ballot, and that if "None of the above" gets the most votes, the current candidates are disqualified and the political parties need to start over from scratch. Then again, that's for single offices, such as POTUS; for positions like Congress, where there are multiple open seats, I feel proportional representation is the way to go.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's just a shame that people feel that they are entitled to the benefits of society but are not required to contribute anything in return for those benefits. I personally feel that we should be required to vote - and that the political system should be required to give us candidates worth voting for.

Agreed. And with something like a strict spending limit with complete public transparency for all electoral candidates, not only could that enable our two biggest political parties to present better candidates but it also opens the door to other politicians that aren't necessarily Democrat or Republican. Here's an example... say that the spending limit for any presidential campaign would be set at $50 Million. One viable candidate representing each party would be given an "allowance" anywhere up to half by the government. Everything they spend (including what they received from the government) would have to be reported (that means receipts!) and listed on a public record for all citizens to see online. Candidates could still obtain additional funding from outside donations or fundraising, but it cannot go over the spending limit and that also has to be reported. That way, if someone wanted to be funded entirely by the Koch Brothers or Public Unions they could. However, it could only be so much and it has to be disclosed. Inappropriate use or a failure to report campaign funding can result in the loss of electoral points in the states where the rule was broken, or a full disqualification of the candidate if the offense is that severe.

I also feel that there should be a "None of the above" option on the ballot, and that if "None of the above" gets the most votes, the current candidates are disqualified and the political parties need to start over from scratch. Then again, that's for single offices, such as POTUS; for positions like Congress, where there are multiple open seats, I feel proportional representation is the way to go.

Hehehehe... That sounds evil. Considering how crazy some of our politicians are now, just how many times would our electorate vote for "none of the above" in one political season?

 

[phillyhangin]

Agreed. And with something like a strict spending limit with complete public transparency for all electoral candidates, not only could that enable our two biggest political parties to present better candidates but it also opens the door to other politicians that aren't necessarily Democrat or Republican.

The spending limit would need to be set at a reasonable level to ensure that smaller-party candidates have a fighting chance when it comes to fundraising. I would even go so far as to suggest that political advertising as currently practiced be scrapped altogether:

The government should provide free official websites for each qualifying candidate - websites which have strict standards for content (i.e. concrete proposals vs. generic language, no personal attacks, etc.); newspapers should be required to provide space for one opinion piece per week from each qualifying candidate (with strict limits on length) - these pieces would all appear in the politics section on the same day of the week, so no one has an advantage; and, the broadcast media should be required to provide a free thirty-second, prime-time advertisement spot to each qualified candidate each day - each spot would feature a link to the candidate's website and all spots would be aired in a single block so that no one has an advantage. That puts everyone on a level playing field and eliminates the influence of outside financing - not to mention that it holds the broadcast media to their task of using the public airwaves for the public good.

Plus, it would piss off a lot of special interest groups...which is good enough for me! :sgrin:

Inappropriate use or a failure to report campaign funding can result in the loss of electoral points in the states where the rule was broken, or a full disqualification of the candidate if the offense is that severe.

No arguments here, although, to be nasty, I'd say disqualify them from the current race for even one offense, and disqualify them for life for multiple offenses...but that's just me.

Hehehehe... That sounds evil. Considering how crazy some of our politicians are now, just how many times would our electorate vote for "none of the above" in one political season?

Evil is as evil does! :sgrin: I personally think it would be fun to watch 'em squirm. Eventually they'd figure out that "nutcases need not apply." At least one would hope...

Alas, I doubt anything like any of the above would be practical - I mean, do we really want a huge block of prime-time political ads every single day? - but it would certainly make politics a lot more interesting.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I like the way you think, phillyhangin.
Brains and a big dick. It's always good to have the ability to stimulate two things at once! :biggrin:

 

[phillyhangin]

I like the way you think, phillyhangin.
Brains and a big dick. It's always good to have the ability to stimulate two things at once! :biggrin:

Perhaps we need to get together for some more stimulating conversation. NYC isn't that far from Philly... :wink:

 

[Bardox]

I've seen tax cut after tax cut for the upper 2% year after year. The purpose has always been that these cuts would generate job creation. As yet I have not seen any job creation due to tax cuts for the rich. These are people that cut jobs not create them. The only time I've seen significant job creation was when taxes on the rich were increased.

 

[deleted15807]

^ The well known American attention span is circa two weeks so it works out quite well for the well funded right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation that push these lies.

 

[Mensch1351]

Agreed. And with something like a strict spending limit with complete public transparency for all electoral candidates, not only could that enable our two biggest political parties to present better candidates but it also opens the door to other politicians that aren't necessarily Democrat or Republican. Here's an example... say that the spending limit for any presidential campaign would be set at $50 Million. One viable candidate representing each party would be given an "allowance" anywhere up to half by the government. Everything they spend (including what they received from the government) would have to be reported (that means receipts!) and listed on a public record for all citizens to see online. Candidates could still obtain additional funding from outside donations or fundraising, but it cannot go over the spending limit and that also has to be reported. That way, if someone wanted to be funded entirely by the Koch Brothers or Public Unions they could. However, it could only be so much and it has to be disclosed. Inappropriate use or a failure to report campaign funding can result in the loss of electoral points in the states where the rule was broken, or a full disqualification of the candidate if the offense is that severe.



Hehehehe... That sounds evil. Considering how crazy some of our politicians are now, just how many times would our electorate vote for "none of the above" in one political season?

And ALL political advertising should be banned --- each national candidate is given x number of hours to make their appeal to the American public -- it's done as a "public service" announcement at no charge from the networks! Here in Kansas City -- Jim Talent had SOOOO much money to spend against Claire McCaskill that every time -- and I mean EVERY time there was a commercial break there was a Jim Talent for Senate commercial -- sometimes 2. Ludicrous!