PDA

View Full Version : Boortz: Big fat liar?



Qtec
12-22-2011, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carlson Ignores Reality To Claim Obama Has Been "All About Raising Taxes"
December 21, 2011 1:43 pm ET 24 Comments

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that <u>"for the first three years of [Obama's] administration, many people would argue that he was all about raising taxes."</u>

<span style="color: #000099">[ Boortz agreed with her. Q]</span>

CARLSON: Moving forward, President Obama is going to be able to capitalize on this.

BOORTZ: Sure, they pass a two-month extension and they leave town. They're off Christmas shopping right now, the Republicans look hapless, and it'll probably go through January, who knows? And can you believe this? Barack Obama is now cast as the tax cutter? I mean, that's like me being a hair model. This -- this doesn't work!

CARLSON: Because for the first three years of his administration, many people would argue that he was all about raising taxes.

BOORTZ:<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Anybody that's been paying attention would argue that.</span> [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 12/21/11]





In fact, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Obama has lowered taxes repeatedly;</span> he called for many tax cuts before becoming president as part of his economic plan; and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>more than half the cost of the jobs bill he proposed this year came from tax cuts.</span> </div></div>

One third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts! He also extended the Bush tax cuts !


What an idiot. watch it (http://mediamatters.org/research/201112210009)

Q

Soflasnapper
12-22-2011, 01:30 PM
The perception Boortz is talking about is real (as a perception that exists), and it is not entirely unfounded.

If Obama had his way, the Bush tax cut for the top bracket would have been sunsetted at the end of last year (2010) as had been what the law specified, and that would have amounted to the $800 billion 10-year total tax increase as CBO scores it. A large tax hike, although he wouldn't have caused it, exactly. Since it didn't happen, one might argue it shouldn't characterize Obama. I disagree, especially since we're talking the perception of the prior years, since he was trying to make that happen, and proposed it.

Then you have the way the individual mandate will work, which has been passed, although it is not yet in effect for another year's time. The way it works is just about like a tax, although a peculiar kind of means-tested tax, that you are exempted from or receive cash assistance with, if you have a low enough income (or are in an insurance program in the workplace).

The further counterargument on your side is that Obama has actually cut taxes. Which happens to be true, of course. So then, given that reality, I suppose one has to net out the difference to see which he's done more. But as for public perception, nobody much realizes the O tax cuts have even occurred. Why is that? Because he made sure they occurred in the way most likely to cause the extra money to be spent, and not saved, to provide the greatest economic benefit. He did that by not putting it out in a lump sum that everyone would actually see, because lump sums tend to get partially saved or used to pay down debt. So it went out in equal amounts over the paychecks, $400 per person or $800 per couple filing jointly, PER YEAR, which is about $8 or $16 a week (x however many weeks one has in a pay period).

Qtec
12-22-2011, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The perception Boortz is talking about is real (as a perception that exists), and it is not entirely unfounded.

If Obama had his way, the Bush tax cut for the top bracket would have been sunsetted at the end of last year (2010) as had been what the law specified, and that would have amounted to the $800 billion 10-year total tax increase as CBO scores it. A large tax hike, although he wouldn't have caused it, exactly.</div></div>

Lets say you walk by a store and there is this great suit in the window. You love the suit but its a $1,000, a bit too pricey. Then one day you see a sign, "January Sale. Everything 50% off."
Great, you buy the suit and it costs you $500.
In fact, after a few weeks you love this suit so much you go back to buy another one.
Guess what, its now February and the suit costs $1,000.

Would it be fair for you to argue with the store owner that he has hiked his prices by 50%?

Taxes have been 'in the sale' for 10 years, now the sale is over. Is that a hike?


Even if you do think this is a tax hike, it only affects 1% of the population so how can it be a huge tax hike when it only affects a few?

Q.

eg8r
12-22-2011, 10:01 PM
So you agree that the Bush tax cuts are Obama's tax cuts. I guess you just wanted say it first before actually believing it. What a schmuck you are.

eg8r

eg8r
12-22-2011, 10:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The perception Boortz is talking about is real (as a perception that exists), and it is not entirely unfounded.
</div></div>Without even reading the rest of your post, I thank you for recognizing qtip to be the whiner he is. Over and over he tells us the Bush tax cuts are not Obama's but then when Obama is blamed for "wanting" to raise taxes the first thing qtip lunges for are the Bush tax cut extensions. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 10:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you agree that the Bush tax cuts are Obama's tax cuts. </div></div>

Eh......NO! We have been through this a 100 times and you still don't get it!

Again, the GOP made a deal with the Dems that the Bush tax cuts would be a tax 'sale' for a period of 10 years, after that the rates would go back to where they were supposed to be!

Due to the dire economic situation that the Republicans and Bush had caused, Obama decided that the tax 'sale' should be extended for the MC but the top 1% were excluded.

Who was against that?
Who held the whole country to ransom ?

The party of NO tax increases were prepared to let everyone's taxes go up just because their masters might have to pay a little more tax.

Obama caved and compromised and now you try and claim this is what he wanted?

Total BS.

Q

Soflasnapper
12-23-2011, 10:30 AM
Would it be fair for you to argue with the store owner that he has hiked his prices by 50%?

Taxes have been 'in the sale' for 10 years, now the sale is over. Is that a hike?

First, of course, it would be at that time a 100% price hike.

Few would think it that, because the sale had been so short, and the main price at $1,000 almost always in place.

But if the 'sale' were for 10 years, people might very well have a different attitude to the price increase. After 10 years, it would not seem nearly so much a return to an earlier prevailing price after a (brief) sale, at all.

We are not disagreeing on what is true, but what the perception would be. And really, how this might be treated under law if it came under some FTC or FCC review. If a company has a 50% off sale, and it goes on for YEARS, that probably would be considered the new full price, not a 50% off price, after an arbitrary but considerable length of time.

So we have these various arguable points, plus the alternate universe of the right, and Boortz is actually describing a dominant meme about Obama among the right, which is not wholly lacking in foundation. Still false, but more respectably wrong than scurrilously lyingly wrong.

eg8r
12-23-2011, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama decided that the tax 'sale' should be extended for the MC but the top 1% were excluded.
</div></div>You really are a schmuck. They are the Obama tax cuts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama caved and compromised and now you try and claim this is what he wanted?
</div></div>Why would you think I said he "wanted" it. Obama is a tax increase guy. He wants to raise taxes not reduce them. However, now he sees that mentality won't get him far so he wants to be viewed as a tax cut kind of guy which he isn't and by your quote alone he is a follower not a leader.

eg8r

eg8r
12-23-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But if the 'sale' were for 10 years, people might very well have a different attitude to the price increase. After 10 years, it would not seem nearly so much a return to an earlier prevailing price after a (brief) sale, at all.
</div></div>Your voice of reason is a perfect example of why it is best for qtip to shut the hole in his face and stick to what he does best...copy/paste and letting others speak for him. Once he opens his mouth he proves me right every time.

eg8r

Qtec
12-24-2011, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are the Obama tax cuts. </div></div>

The rates are unchanged, so how can Obama have made a tax cut? If you get a tax cut, the rates go down do they not?

You are paying the same tax rate as under Bush. ie there was no Obama tax cut.



Q

eg8r
12-25-2011, 09:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rates are unchanged, so how can Obama have made a tax cut? </div></div>Extending tax cuts make him part owner. It puts his name on the tax cuts.

What is funny is now you are trying to tell us Obama did not cut any taxes (other than maybe $8/wk for those that work 40 hours).

eg8r &lt;~~~thinks it is hilarious watching qtip get all twisted in his own fantasy lie

LWW
12-27-2011, 03:03 AM
So what was the lie?

LWW
12-27-2011, 03:07 AM
Much to your perpetual embarrassment, the TRUTH (http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433) is out there.

LWW
12-30-2011, 05:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much to your perpetual embarrassment, the TRUTH (http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433) is out there. </div></div>

It's amazing how fast the O-cultists run when the harsh light of truth shines upon them.

Qtec
12-30-2011, 05:40 AM
The lie is that the RW lump the poor and the MC right in with the billionaires.

When the RW rich scream that Obama wants to raise taxes, they mean Obama wants to raise taxes on them, the select few, not the MC or the poor. That should be made clear.

Details matter.
Q

LWW
12-30-2011, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lie is that the RW lump the poor and the MC right in with the billionaires.

When the RW rich scream that Obama wants to raise taxes, they mean Obama wants to raise taxes on them, the select few, not the MC or the poor. That should be made clear.

Details matter.
Q </div></div>

Details matter indeed ... and Obama's bankster masters have written the tax code in such a manner that the real tax rate on them cannot possibly be increased.

What they have done is shift the burden onto the middle class in such a way that whenever a MC type founds a business, or cashes in a 401K or IRA ... or sells a family farm or business ... or sells their home, they will quite likley become temporarily among the "EEEVILLL RICH" and be destroyed by the policies you cheer for.

A thugocracy needs an electorate primarily made up of fools ... and the takeover of education is finally providing them with that.

Qtec
12-30-2011, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Details matter indeed ... and Obama's bankster masters <u>have written the tax code </u></div></div>

...before he was ever President , just to be clear.

Ordinary working class people will now have to work longer for less pension. These are the facts.

What crime did they commit? Why should THEY have to pay for the Wall St gamblers who lost their shirts?


What Enron, the S&l and the the latest financial crisis shows is that greed IS NOT GOOD .

A theory on which Capitalism is based on!


Q

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much to your perpetual embarrassment, the TRUTH (http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433) is out there. </div></div>

According to this truth, and the truth of your own circumstances, what do you say your tax increase has been for all of these listed tax increases, for this past year, or the year coming up?

Isn't it zero? Unless you smoke cigarettes, I mean?

By far most of these things take place down the road in the out years, and have not yet taken effect. The alleged and purported 'total tax increase' is a 10-year figure starting from when it's put in place and grows, so the first years will be less than 1/10th the figure claimed by your source. (Unless they explain somewhere that their figures are 10-year projections, providing the 'tax increase' number as a 10-year aggregate is grossly misleading.

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...before he was ever President , just to be clear.

Q </div></div>

So why didn't he and the dems redo the tax code?

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ordinary working class people will now have to work longer for less pension. These are the facts.

What crime did they commit? Why should THEY have to pay for the Wall St gamblers who lost their shirts?

Q </div></div>

They committed the crime of demanding that the state rob their grandkids so they could be irresponsible during their working years.

And, yes, people will have to work longer ... but the current regime is still pimping them to believe there is no day of reckoning.

Wall St gambling has nothing to do with that.

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Enron, the S&l and the the latest financial crisis shows is that <s>greed</s> FASCISM IS NOT GOOD .

Q </div></div>

LWW
12-30-2011, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much to your perpetual embarrassment, the TRUTH (http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433) is out there. </div></div>

<s>According to this truth, and the truth of your own circumstances, what do you say your tax increase has been for all of these listed tax increases, for this past year, or the year coming up?

Isn't it zero? Unless you smoke cigarettes, I mean?

By far most of these things take place down the road in the out years, and have not yet taken effect. The alleged and purported 'total tax increase' is a 10-year figure starting from when it's put in place and grows, so the first years will be less than 1/10th the figure claimed by your source. (Unless they explain somewhere that their figures are 10-year projections, providing the 'tax increase' number as a 10-year aggregate is grossly misleading.</s>

</div></div>

Condensed:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

Soflasnapper
12-30-2011, 01:39 PM
Yeah, thanks for confirming by your non-denial that you are paying zero in new taxes at this point.

(Your transparent dodges of (not) answering the question with a lame one line non-answer that is non-responsive do not go unnoticed by all here.)

Congrats on not smoking, btw.

eg8r
12-30-2011, 11:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lie is that the RW lump the poor and the MC right in with the billionaires.

When the RW rich scream that Obama wants to raise taxes, they mean Obama wants to raise taxes on them, the select few, not the MC or the poor. That should be made clear.</div></div>Why should it be made clear when they are all Americans and left always want to cry "fairness"?

eg8r

pooltchr
12-31-2011, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Even if you do think this is a tax hike, it only affects 1% of the population
Q. </div></div>

Is that the evil 1% who already pay the largest portion of federal income taxes? Is that the 1% that the left has been crying don't pay their "fair share"?

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. That "fair share" idea might end up as a flat tax, and that 47% who pay zero federal income taxes at the moment, might end up actually paying their "fair share". But that wouldn't fit into the liberal agenda, would it?

Obama has managed to promote class warfare in this country by pitting the poor and working class against the "evil rich". Divide and conquer. This man has been the single most destructive force to attack our country in 70 years! We must get him out of Washington if we are to survive.

Steve

Qtec
12-31-2011, 03:23 AM
A flat tax is not fair.

The 1% have brought the attention on themselves. After tanking the economy with their fraud, they got the 99% to bail them out.
The banks are now BIGGER and making more money than ever and paying themselves even bigger bonus's!
Meanwhile, due to massive Govt cuts in spending, services that the 99% rely on are being reduced or abolished.

People see that and it pisses them off. "Where is the shared sacrifice" they say.

Q

LWW
12-31-2011, 03:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.


Q

</div></div>

Why?

LWW
12-31-2011, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The banks are now BIGGER and making more money than ever and paying themselves even bigger bonus's!

Q

</div></div>

How?

LWW
12-31-2011, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile, due to massive Govt cuts in spending, services that the 99% rely on are being reduced or abolished.

Q

</div></div>

Such as?

What's that?

You made it up?

But ... I already knew that.

eg8r
01-01-2012, 02:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.
</div></div>The definition of fair is when everyone pays an equal amount.

eg8r

LWW
01-01-2012, 03:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.
</div></div>The definition of fair is when everyone pays an equal amount.

eg8r </div></div>

Not to a leftist.

To a leftist, the definition of "FAIR" is when everyone has a daily ration of 2 slices of week old bread a weak cup of beet soup ... other than the inner party members of course.

Qtec
01-01-2012, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.
</div></div>The definition of fair is when everyone pays an equal amount.

eg8r </div></div>

What rubbish. A fair tax is that everyone pays what they can according to their income.

A man who earns 4,000 a month pays %1,400 [ 35%] in tax. Are you saying that the guy who makes 100,000 a month should also pay the same amount?

ie one guy pays 35% and the other less than 2%?

That's fair?

Q

pooltchr
01-01-2012, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.
</div></div>The definition of fair is when everyone pays an equal amount.

eg8r </div></div>

What rubbish. A fair tax is that everyone pays what they can according to their income.

A man who earns 4,000 a month pays %1,400 [ 35%] in tax. Are you saying that the guy who makes 100,000 a month should also pay the same amount?

ie one guy pays 35% and the other less than 2%?

That's fair?

Q </div></div>

Good point, Q. And by the same reasoning, nearly half of the working individuals in the country paying ZERO tax, while the higher income workers pay all of the taxes paid is somehow fair in your mind?????????????????????????????????????

If the guy who makes $50k pays 25%, shouldn't the guy who makes a million pay 25%? and shouldn't the guy who makes $20k pay 25%? Wouldn't that be everyone paying their "fair share"?

Steve

eg8r
01-01-2012, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What rubbish. A fair tax is that everyone pays what they can according to their income.
</div></div>What rubbish. You just might be Karl Marx's long lost bastard grandson. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)</div></div>Keep the family proud qtip.

Why is it that you lack so much common sense. A man who earns 4,000 a month pay 15% just like a man who earns $100,000/month. Both paying 15% is absolutely fair. Now if we are talking about the actual dollar amount then no this is not fair because the guy making $4k/month will be taxed a smaller dollar amount but I am willing to make the concession to base this on a percentage instead of actual dollar amount.

eg8r

eg8r
01-01-2012, 09:22 AM
The lefties like to shift the line in the sand when talking about fair. Let's say qtip and a poor man walk into best buy. qtip is there for a brand new LED 3D TV that he has been saving money for 6 months to buy. When qtip gets to the register to pay he notices the poor man has the exact same TV. The poor man only had to pay $100. qtip then has to pay $2k for his tv. qtip starts whining to the manager that it isn't "fair" the bum gets the tv for free. The manager smiles at qtip and tells him it is fair, the poor man should not have to pay 50+% of his monthly income to buy the tv when clearly it was only going to cost qtip 20% of his monthly income to buy the same tv.

eg8r

LWW
01-01-2012, 11:06 AM
Good point ... but I suspect it cleared snoopy's head by several hundred yards.

Soflasnapper
01-01-2012, 09:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A flat tax is not fair.
</div></div>The definition of fair is when everyone pays an equal amount.

eg8r </div></div>

Ha! Even you don't believe that one.

I believe you meant to say, "...when everyone pays an equal percentage tax."

Otherwise, however rich one might be, you would be saying the only fair amount of tax they should pay would be the same dollar amount that the poorest person pays.

I'm thinking that isn't what you meant at all.

Now, going further, if you indeed do think it is fair that someone eking by on minimum wage ought to pay, I don't know, say, 10% income tax, and yet someone making $1 million a year ought to pay the same RATE, meaning they'd pay something like 16 x the tax amount, why is THAT particular arrangement fair in your view? And IF YOU AGREE that is fair, as I think you will, YOUR REASON FOR THAT is exactly the reason why the progressive tax rate system (advocated by Republican president TR I think) is also fair. QED.

BTW, apparently the progressive income tax idea was fathered by the father of capitalism theory, Mr. Adam Smith.

LWW
01-02-2012, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, going further, if you indeed do think it is fair that someone eking by on minimum wage ought to pay, I don't know, say, 10% income tax, and yet someone making $1 million a year ought to pay the same RATE, meaning they'd pay something like 16 x the tax amount, why is THAT particular arrangement fair in your view? And IF YOU AGREE that is fair, as I think you will, YOUR REASON FOR THAT is exactly the reason why the progressive tax rate system (advocated by Republican president TR I think) is also fair. QED.</div></div>

No serious FLAT TAX or FAIR TAX proposal even hints at beginning taxation of any income below a certain level.

The FAIR TAX even has a prebate coming back to low wage earners.

The problem with all "PROGRESSIVE" tax plans is that they have a wet dream over ever higher rates based on income.

These plans always fail because the code leaves loopholes where surplus income can be hidden tax free. This not only defeats the purpose of the higher rate, but it distorts the economy due to capital being placed where it is safe from taxation as opposed to where it is most profitable.

A lower tax rate, which eliminates all or nearly all of the deductions, will always generate more revenue. The principle is simple ... if $100.00 is earned and taxed at 25% it generates $25.00 in revenue. If $100.00 is earned and half placed in tax protected categories ... it takes a 50% rate to generate the same revenue as the 25% rate.

Qtec
01-02-2012, 05:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with all "PROGRESSIVE" tax plans is that they have a wet dream over ever higher rates based on income.

<u>These plans always fail because the code leaves loopholes</u> where surplus income can be hidden tax free. </div></div>

Fix the loopholes then!

Oh wait, who is AGAINST fixing the loopholes?????????? ...the GOP!

Q

Qtec
01-02-2012, 05:47 AM
Polifact, when they still had some credibility.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SEIU is correct that Republicans did fight against Democratic plans to close tax loopholes on multinational corporations. </div></div> link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/07/service-employees-international-union-committee-po/republicans-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes/)

Q

LWW
01-02-2012, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with all "PROGRESSIVE" tax plans is that they have a wet dream over ever higher rates based on income.

<u>These plans always fail because the code leaves loopholes</u> where surplus income can be hidden tax free. </div></div>

Fix the loopholes then!

Oh wait, who is AGAINST fixing the loopholes?????????? ...the GOP!

Q </div></div>

Wrong.

Both.

It takes an educated electorate demanding it to happen.

What political movement has done that?

The TPM.

You would feel silly right now ... if you were capable of shame.

Gayle in MD
01-02-2012, 08:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Due to the dire economic situation that the Republicans and Bush had caused, Obama decided that the tax 'sale' should be extended for the MC but the top 1% were excluded.

Who was against that?
Who held the whole country to ransom ?

The party of NO tax increases were prepared to let everyone's taxes go up just because their masters might have to pay a little more tax.

</div></div>



Some in our country do not understand that relative to what the top one percent earns, what they pay in taxes, is far from what anyone could consider their fair share.

That seems particularly true given the greed and corruption which was so thoroughly on display by Wall Stree Crooks, and polluting pigs in the ennergy industry, who have stolen from all of us for decades.

Additionally, comparing this president's desire to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest, most of whom are NOT JOB CREATORS, while keeping them in place for those Americans who do not make multi millions and billions every year, was the only reasonable and honorable thing to do, particularly, UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING,when we finally got rid of the Bush disaster, and factoring in The disastrous conditions prevailing, post Bush... the hallmark of critical thinking skills, certain flyovers are relentlessly unable to manage such reason, intellectually, that is.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Additionally, these are NOT the OBAMA tax cuts, they are THE BUSH TAX CUTS... Our Democratic representatives do not allow fat, ugly, self appointed blow hards, like Grove Norquist, to dictate to them what they may and may not vote for, as the Lemmings on the right are known for. It's the bubba factor...


G.

pooltchr
01-02-2012, 08:42 PM
What you don't understand is the simple fact that the top 10% of earners pay nearly 80% of all federal income taxes collected, while the bottom 47% pay little or no income tax at all. You are correct that the rich don't pay their "fair share". They pay their fair share and enough to cover those who don't pay any at all.

But, I give you an E for effort in perpetuating the class warfare lie that Obama has been working on for his entire term.

Good job, little soldier!

Steve

eg8r
01-02-2012, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what they pay in taxes, is far from what anyone could consider their fair share.
</div></div>Yet those who state this will never give their definition of "fair". I have given mine many times, I consider "fair" everyone paying and equal share. Since dollar amount wouldn't make sense I am willing to make a concession and use a percentage.

eg8r

LWW
01-03-2012, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what they pay in taxes, is far from what anyone could consider their fair share.
</div></div>Yet those who state this will never give their definition of "fair". I have given mine many times, I consider "fair" everyone paying and equal share. Since dollar amount wouldn't make sense I am willing to make a concession and use a percentage.

eg8r </div></div>

That's because the regime has never told them what their "OPINION" on what "FAIR" should be.