Obama's America

Originally posted by duecer
great, thanks for asking. It should be another year or 2 before he gets Mitt Romneys mess cleaned up.

You should read the article and see why people derisively call your home state "Taxachussetts."

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
How do you like giving what you work hard for to the government? Better yet, how would you like giving even more of that back to the governmetn, should either B. Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton become president? If nothing else, McCain will at least keep the tax on capital gains and dividends at its currently low rate. This means you will earn m ...[text shortened]... instead of handing it over to the government. That's a pretty good reason not to vote Democrat.

That answer is non-responsive to my question which was:

BTW, why do right wingers think rich folks' dividends and capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than most people's salary (most right wingers think they shouldn't be taxed at all)?


I assume even you admit that some taxation is necessary. If income is going to be taxed at all, why should dividends and capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than salary?

I don't hate my country enough to resent paying taxes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It'll certainly mean higher taxes for Pete Du Pont and that's a good thing. BTW, why do right wingers think rich folks' dividends and capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than most people's salary (most right wingers think they shouldn't be taxed at all)?

the wealthy are taxed at almost 50% which is much higher than anyone else. The dems want to rape the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor, which is no doubt where your income comes from.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
the wealthy are taxed at almost 50% which is much higher than anyone else. The dems want to rape the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor, which is no doubt where your income comes from.

As coherent as ever.

Originally posted by Redmike
As coherent as ever.

keep collecting your handouts Mikey.

Originally posted by duecer
great, thanks for asking. It should be another year or 2 before he gets Mitt Romneys mess cleaned up.

Just so you don't get caught up in your own revisionist fantasy, Romney resigned his position as governor so he could run for President. In other words, Deval Patrick wasn't swept into office "...to clean up Romney's mess." Indeed, Romney did a pretty good job while governor of one of the most liberal states in the union:

(From Romney's own Website)

...Elected in 2002, Governor Romney presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a $3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate growth in Massachusetts, Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses.

At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. Today, the unemployment rate is lower, hundreds of companies have expanded or moved to Massachusetts and the state has added approximately 60,000 jobs in the last two years.

One of Governor Romney's top priorities was reforming the education system so that young people could compete for good paying jobs in the global economy of the future. In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college. He has also championed a package of education reforms, including merit pay, an emphasis on math and science instruction, important new intervention programs for failing schools and English immersion for foreign-speaking students.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That answer is non-responsive to my question which was:

BTW, why do right wingers think rich folks' dividends and capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than most people's salary (most right wingers think they shouldn't be taxed at all)?


I assume even you admit that some taxation is necessary. If income is going t ...[text shortened]... lower rate than salary?

I don't hate my country enough to resent paying taxes.

Capital gains and dividends aren't the same as "income." Also, there are over 100 million Americans with capital gains and dividends, since many workers receive stock options, 401(k)s and IRA's through work. Half are considered Middle Class. A more important question, then, would seem to be: Why do Hillary and Obama want to harm the Middle Class by taxing their investments, thus lowering their value? It almost seems that since the Democratic party leaders are rich, they don't want anyone to be rich unless you're in government. Which then begs the question: Why do you support this?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Capital gains and dividends aren't the same as "income." Also, there are over 100 million Americans with capital gains and dividends, since many workers receive stock options, 401(k)s and IRA's through work. Half are considered Middle Class. A more important question, then, would seem to be: Why do Hillary and Obama want to harm the Middle Class ...[text shortened]... e rich unless you're in government. Which then begs the question: Why do you support this?

I see a key to your argument as decreasing the size of government. But your so-called Republican
leader has dramatically increased the size of government and the size of our debt. Ronald Reagan
did this as well (especially the latter). Under Clinton, the government remained static in size,
and deficit spending was abolished for the first time in decades.

Bush may be lowering taxes, but it's short-sighted since the debt he's accruing is becoming
astronomically unmanageable and he's treating the budget like Paris Hilton's treats her credit card.

Yes, I want smaller government. Yes, I want the government to reduce all handouts. But, the
Republican part gives handouts to rich businesses whereas the the Democrats give handouts to
poor people. Why do you choose the former over the latter? Because they're white, I suspect.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I see a key to your argument as decreasing the size of government. But your so-called Republican
leader has dramatically increased the size of government and the size of our debt. Ronald Reagan
did this as well (especially the latter). Under Clinton, the government remained static in size,
and deficit spending was abolished for the first time in decade ...[text shortened]... Why do you choose the former over the latter? Because they're white, I suspect.

Nemesio

The effects of tax breaks on businesses trickles down to the rest of us, but handouts to citizens only promote laziness.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
The effects of tax breaks on businesses trickles down to the rest of us, but handouts to citizens only promote laziness.

"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695

Supply-side economics is not nearly the cure-all that many conservatives think it is. Judiciously applied, it can stimulate growth in the economy (which benefits everyone), but when applied as general fiscal policy it will (and has) caused the middle class to shrink while the rich grow much much more rich. It is a temporary fix for *some* situations...nothing more.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
- K ...[text shortened]... he rich grow much much more rich. It is a temporary fix for *some* situations...nothing more.

Not to be a simpleton, but all I know if when dems are in office my taxes go up (i'm middle class economically) and when republicans are in office they go down.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Not to be a simpleton, but all I know if when dems are in office my taxes go up (i'm middle class economically) and when republicans are in office they go down.

Sure, your tax burden probably is a little bit less right now that it was 10 years ago (adjusted for inflation, of course), but have you seen what is happening to the national debt right now? How sustainable do you think your lower tax bill is?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Sure, your tax burden probably is a little bit less right now that it was 10 years ago (adjusted for inflation, of course), but have you seen what is happening to the national debt right now? How sustainable do you think your lower tax bill is?

it will last about another 7 months.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
The effects of tax breaks on businesses trickles down to the rest of us, but handouts to citizens only promote laziness.

The economy of so-called trickle-down economics is a disastrous policy, as Reagan showed in his
abysmal performance as President. Of deluge of money siphoned to businesses, only a trickle
ended up in the workers' hands, the vast majority was damed up in CEO's bank accounts. Meanwhile,
Reagan's 'spend now, pay later' attitude has resulted in our decreasing influence in global economic
markets, most notably banking in which we are beginning to default. Clinton, again, tried to
correct this (and succeeded) only to have a return of Reagan-esque thinking (although with less
thinking) in which taxes are cut while government grows.

Think about it from a personal perspective: one of the biggest problems for individual Americans
is personal debt on credit cards. After a point, people cease to be able to keep up with the
mounting interest. This is widely considered, by both Democrat and Republican, Liberal and
Conservative alike, as one of the biggest economic problems facing an individual. But the
American government is acting no differently.

Again, I want a very small government with no handouts whatsoever, but if I'm forced to pick
handouts for someone, I'd rather it be poor people than rich business owners.

Nemesio

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
it will last about another 7 months.

{sigh}
What? You want lower taxes no matter how it hurts the country? If our debt continues to grow it will begin to hurt our international standing considerably. As our debt begins to eclipse a higher and higher percentage of our GDP our credit risk become higher and higher which could result in the loss of our AAA credt rating around the world. This will cause us to have to pay higher interest rates for our loans, costing us trillions more!!

The debt must be brought under control, the budget must be balanced and the current administration is unwilling or unable to do it. The last democrat we had in office DID do it. Sure, the Dem's will tax the rich to get it done, but they can afford it and the middle class right now cannot.