Tax Increases

The whiner was 'NCTraveler' over on Dickhead Underground.

Don't bother searching for his post, he deleted it.

All of a sudden millions of American families are forced to deal with less take home pay.
The early effects of just a few of Obama's tax increases are now being felt nationwide
and the new Obama payroll taxes appear to be hurting middle income Americans most.

H2O do you understand what the word temporary means? The Obama tax cuts were temporary as were the Bush Tax cuts they were never intended to become permanent because the country could not afford the Bush Tax cuts. Bush was responsible for the biggest redistribution of wealth in history and it wasn’t the wealth of the ungodly greedy Bush redistributed, it was the wealth of the working people, the $2.7 trillion social security trust fund.

H2O certainly even you had to realize that once baby Bush had redistributed the entire $2.7 trillion social security trust fund to his wealthiest friends the bush tax cuts couldn’t continue. If the Bush tax cuts continued they would cause a tremendous deficit. The commie/conservatives fought to the death to continue the Bush Tax cuts when they were set to expire in 2010 but unfortunately by 2010 the first wave of baby boomers began to retire and there was not another $2.7 trillion social security trust fund to redistribute. To make matters worse soon the original $2.7 trillion trust fund will be needed to help pay current retirees. Baby Bush had never intended for the $2.7 trillion back to social security. Bush posed for photo opportunity beside the filing cabinet that holds the $2.7 trillion in U S Treasury bonds and told the American people this was just worthless paper.

The commie/conservatives are going to come at the American people hard claiming that we have a “spending problem” and that to cure the “spending problem” we need to cut the spending on “social security” when in effect there is no spending problem. Social security is not costing the general fund one penny in spending at this point all that is being asked of the general fund budget is that they a fraction of the interest due on the $2.7 trillion social security trust fund.

H2O many years ago when I bought this property my house payments went almost by a factor of 10. I refinanced the first house to help make the down payment. I realized like most responsible adults that if you go into debt you are responsible for paying that debt. Certainly I got by with less but I pay my debts and expect others to do the same. In reality all of the Bush tax cuts need to be eliminated for everyone and the tax code needs to be rewritten not with deductions but an amount of income exempt from income tax as close as possible to original exemption of $89,634 (in today’s dollars) . The income tax, the “excess wealth” was intended only to tax “excess wealth.” A value added tax may need for the middle class but they should not be subject to the tax levied on “excess wealth.” The tax on excess wealth must not be applied to those who have no “excess wealth.”

Obamanomics = Less take home pay for most Americans

H2O who raised social security to its current rate of 6.2%? Reagan and Bush senior were responsible for raising social security to the current rate. Social security was raised to offset Reagan’s 60% tax cuts for the ungodly greedy. The cold hard facts of life are that retirement is expensive. Here in Huntington new hires in the police department have to pay nearly 20% of every dollar into social security and their pension and they will not get a policeman’s pension. They were put in the EMS pension system.

Everyone understood that the Obama social security cut was part of the stimulus package to jump start the economy and was only temporary. Obama could have chosen tax rebates as Baby Bush did but social security cuts reached those who were working. The Bush tax rebates didn’t continue after the initial year. The social security tax cut was part of the stimulus package the commie/conservatives wanted to do away with.

Democrats tend to have a better vocabulary then commie/conservatives have and we understood temporary doesn’t mean permanent.

Just wait until all of the Obamacare taxes hit those in the lower income brackets.

Budget Deal Makes Permanent 82 Percent of President Bush’s Tax Cuts

H2O I think if wealth is indeed being redistributed in America, since wealth is something of substance it generates hard statistics and in a 30 year period it would be extremely easy to see how the wealth is being redistributed. Can we agree on that? The statistics are in and you are right there was the biggest redistribution of wealth in history but it was not the ungodly wealth being redistributed it was the working poor and the middle class wealth that was redistributed to the ungodly greedy for 30 years. Between 1970 and 2000 the ungodly greedy ‘average” income increase after inflation almost 600%. When your average income goes up by 600% we can all agree they were not a victim. If the ungodly greedy were a victim of wealth redistributed wouldn’t they have less wealth? It is much like the guy who comes back to his car to discover a meter maid giving him a ticket. He knows what his rights are and immediately throws himself to ground and stats yelling police brutality. The ungodly greedy in America have done exactly that throwing themselves to the ground and yelling “redistribution of wealth” but “redistribution of wealth” is nothing but another Hitler like propaganda slogan. Slogans attract the ignorant like flies. Slogans don’t depend on the truth, Hitler advised “As soon as you sacrifice the slogan to make propaganda many sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered.”

So what about the bottom 99% of Americans? How did they do over the same thirty year period? Surely their income skyrocketed with all that redistribution of wealth. For every single dollar the bottom 99% saw in increased income the ungodly got $7,500. A bar graph that represents the increase in income takes 1/8 of an inch to represent the growth in income for the bottom 99% of Americans and 62 ½ feet to represent the income growth of the ungodly greedy. Some redistribution of wealth and remember 99% is not the middle class the middle class lost real income.

The 30 years in question was before the baby Bush tax cuts which made the redistribution of wealth to the ungodly greedy far worse than in the previous three decades.

Redistribution of wealth from the ungodly greedy only happens during revolutions when greedy are roasted like pigs they are. They don’t need 99% of the wealth of a country they just feel entitled to it and there is the real “entitlement” problem in America. The path to ignorance is paved with the belief that there is only one tax in America and that tax is progressive the actual facts are there are 100s of different taxes in America and most are regressive and that anything can be taxed except “excess wealth.”

H2O, yes 82% of the Baby Bush tax cuts remain. Obama objective was just to eliminate the most egregious tax cuts for the ungodly greedy. Now the Republicans have started their push for higher taxes on the working class. Of course they don’t use the word “tax increase” they call it “widening the base.” You never want to say that you are “rasing taxes” but “widening the base” sounds so much better. After being blocked by the commie/conservatives the taxes were raised on less than 1% of Americans but widening the base is going after 47% of Americans and a good percentage of that 47% have already paid federal income tax once on their income and the commie/conservatives want them to pay it a second time. The commie/conservatives want to make sure the troops in combat pay their fair share and want to end the income tax exemption for combat pay. But that is not a tax increase it is just “widening the base.”

Never was so much fuss raised over raising the taxes on so few by the commie/conservatives but as the commie/conservatives push to “widen the base” very little will be said. The commie/conservatives won’t predict disaster or call these people job creators (even though they are the true job creators) as they raise their taxes 50%, 100% or more it will be just “widen the base” to make the income tax more inclusive. Of course if you are paying the increased taxes it will be a tax increase and won’t seem like just “widening the base.

Watchdog calls tax code 'unconscionable burden,' asks Congress to reform system

H2O in 1949 the National Debt was higher than it is now as a percentage of GNP and the Presidents before Reagan had paid down the National Debt and if the rate of pay off had continued the National Debt would have been paid off during Clinton’s term. The hard facts are Reagan’s voodoo economics did far more damage to America than what most people realize. Reagan 20% increase in the social security tax was responsible for building the $2.7 trillion social security trust fund. The government book keeping method books social security as tax receipts, just government income so the excess social security payments masked the true Reagan deficits by offsetting them and if the excess social security payments are factored out of the budget Reagan actually more than quadrupled the National Debt. You can live on credit cards for a while but you not only have to pay the piper but the banker also.

When baby Bush took office the budget was balanced and Bush said give the ungodly greedy back their money but of course he gave them the baby boomers social security trust fund. The Baby Boomers were still paying more in than was being taken out of social security. Then the Bush administration used forged documents to take the nation to war with Iraq a county that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Wars are expensive and have to be paid for. All past wars saw tax increases to pay for them. The Iraq war will cost tax payers $3 trillion before interest. But Cheney said we don’t need to pay for the wars because Reagan proved “Deficits don’t matter” and Baby Bush gave more and bigger tax cuts to the ungodly greedy.


H2O get you a pocket full of credit cards and live on them for a year and you will know what an “unconscionable burden is.” The commie/conservatives assured us voodoo economics was the way to and go and the American people voted for Reagan even after they knew he was quadrupling the National Debt and the voted for Baby Bush after they knew he was wagging a $3 trillion dollar war to drive up the price of oil in Texas up.

H2O you have not seen an unconscionable burden” yet wait till the tax rates are 93% on the ungodly greedy like they were in the 1950s. If you are going to fight wars you are going to have to pay for them. Many Americans have a bankruptcy mentality they live like kings for a while and when they don’t make enough money to pay their bills they take bankruptcy and start over. Reagan and Bush ran the country that way and Bush tried to bankrupt social security by claiming the social trust fund was just worthless paper much like a member of the public that takes bankruptcy.

In the end reformed or not the same amount of dollars mut be collected. You will spend the next 20 years paying for the debt Reagan ran up.

ZarZar, you are a low information, high BS content kind of person.

You are basically a wind machine... we appreciate the breeze, but
we wish you would brush your teeth and maybe gargle more often.

H2O I see you are up on your slogans. “Low information voter” is newest of Rush Slimbaugh slogans it was coined after the commie/conservatives lost the last election. According to Rush Slimbaugh a “low information voter” is anyone who disagrees with him. The old drug addict just can’t believe that he is slipping and that more and more people are looking for facts and have stopped believing his propaganda without checking the actual facts. Slimbaugh will repeat the slogan “low information voter” 50 times during his 3 hour show. Hitler would be so proud of him. I’ll bet he would give him a gold star. Hitler said, “repeat it until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

Slimbaugh has commanded an army of the ignorant for years, his are the real “low information voters,” those who can’t read or are too lazy to read. But can they listen to propaganda and Slimbaugh’s never ending slogan. But I see you have picked up Slimbaugh slogan.

The statistics I use in my arguments are documented how about yours? Oh that’s right you don’t have any statistics just slogans

Zar, your style of douchbaggery is run of the mill, it's not fresh.

Spend some time with Cyclotroll and come back when you've got game.

H2O facts never change they remain the same no matter who uses them. Now lies are usually fresh, unless they’re slogans that are repeated to the extent of becoming cliques such as “redistribution of wealth,” “low information voter” and “death tax.”

The trouble with slogans is people believe them because they hear them so often they think they must be true. Say “redistribution of wealth” and you have an instant crying party where everyone sits down and cries crocodile tears for the ungodly greedy rich even members of the working poor and middle class cry crocodile tears for the poor abused rich after all the average member of the ungodly greedy only has a yearly income of $20,328,482 and that was their income in 2000 before the baby Bush tax cuts. Of course the baby Bush tax cuts were the ungodly greedy incentive to take much more for themselves. You have people working at Wall Mart repeating the slogan “redistribution of wealth” and feeling sorry for the ungodly greedy even though the ungodly greedy’ income has sky rocketed while the guy working at Wal-Mart had to put his wife to work and has far less to show for it even with his wife working. The Wal-Mart employee feels sorry for the ungodly greedy because the slogan tells him their wealth is being redistributed. When Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, tells the Wal-Mart employees they pay a higher tax then he does the slogan overwhelms their math skills.

The Heritage Foundation carefully focuses tests slogans like the “Death Tax” for maximum impact on the emotional mind. The emotional mind often overrides the rational mind. On other hand statistics show the actual truth but are dull. People are primed to believe in injustice and what is more unjust than the majority beating up on a tiny minority like the ungodly greedy and taking their chips. It is never hard to push people in direction they are already going.

Higher taxes always end up collecting lower revenues, so why would any rational person want to raise taxes?

Then why did Clinton have a surplus with higher taxes?
Or are you only taking about what happens in your fantasy world as opposed to actual reality?

H2O under your theory if taxes were cut to zero we would collect the maximum amount of revenue. There is no one believes that, except for you and a few other commie/conservatives, the faithful followers of Voodoo economics. George Bush senior was the first to refer to Reagan’s lame economic theories as “Voodoo economics.” A capitalist economy always operates in boom bust cycles and that is historical fact. If you did a rain dance and it rained you could take credit for the rain even though it has been raining since the beginning of time. Historically our economy plotted on a graph looks like a sine wave with peaks and depressions (now referred to as recessions). Our economy is extremely complex and thousands of factors are responsible for the amount taxes collected. In a laboratory experiment you could control all other factors except taxes in real life that is not possible. The economy is on a path much like a rollercoaster so the economic conditions today are not the same as yesterday. Like the rain dancer you can do your tax cuts and claim credit for something you had nothing to do with.

Hitler tells us that propaganda cannot be many sided so in fact in this case the commie/conservatives will never acknowledge any other economic factors because Hitler tell us the “effects (of the propaganda) will piddle away.” There is absolutely no doubt that statistics show that Reagan changed the 30 year course of paying off the national Debt and tripled the national Debt during his term. Tripling the National Debt is exactly what we would expect if Reagan gave humongous tax cuts to the ungodly greedy. Now your propaganda says that Reagan had increased tax revenue. What did he do with that increased tax revenue? Triple the National debt? He increased social security tax by close to 20% on 99% of Americans and even that couldn’t offset the tax cuts. Taxes are all thrown into the same pot income taxes, social security taxes, and Medicare taxes. Reagan raised two out of three of these taxes substantially in addition to a near 20% raise in social security Medicare was raised by 28% during Reagan term. Only the taxes on the ungodly greedy were cut dramatically.

H2O notice how simple your propaganda statement is. There is no reliable statistics that sight that Reagan got $5 a year in increased taxes in 1982, or $10 dollars 1983. None that claims to factor out the huge social security and Medicare tax raises just a veg propaganda statement. With the huge Reagan tax raises there should have been no problem paying off the Nation Debt. Why did it triple the National Debt?

There is a pesky little blood sucking mosquito in this thread, I've named it ZarZar.