He sounds so good for America, even when he's wrong...
nohero said:
I have submitted a request to the proprietors of this message board, for information on what other denigrating, demeaning, and racist terms are considered acceptable and "not ban-able". If Mr. Ajc is not allowed to continue to post, I will withdraw that request.
Any luck on this, @nohero ?
Ajc,
The Democratic Party is responsible for Social Security and Medicare. At your age aren't you benefiting.
Of course there are rich people in the Democratic Party but the Republican Party only favors policies that help the rich. All the Republicans seem to care about is lowering taxes for those who make the most money.
Ferguson and Baltimore. I know very little about those Towns. Clearly the people who ran Ferguson are jerks who ran their Town with money extorted from people for Parking Tickets and minor Traffic Offenses. I do not know whether the corrupt Cops in Baltimore are Democrats. I sort of doubt it.
This I know. After race riots in the 60s LBJ appointed a commission known as the Kerner Commission after its Chairman and they issued a report on race relations and urban problems. The principal person behind that report was the commission Co-Chair, the Republican Mayor of New York, John Lindsay. They made excellent recommendations but then Republican Nixon got elected President and ignored the Report completely.
Maybe you should read the Kerner Commission Report or any history book instead of just political propaganda.
I fail to see how 5, 7 & 8 are the results of Democratic programs and leadership. I can see how they allowed 9 through inaction, and something called the United States Constitution, but those other 3 could only be attributed to the Democratic Party through an inability to read.
"Of course there are rich people in the Democratic Party but the Republican Party only favors policies that help the rich."
Please, these talking points are so old, and so wrong, I can't believe anyone has the nerve to keep repeating it. Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. Would you mind providing some evidence to support your position?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0415-eichelberger-taxes-20150415-story.html
Art, I realize you and most of the right have placed discussion of Bush off limits as irrelevant belly aching and ancient history. But I'm curious if the largest expansion of entitlements since 1965 might count as "increasing their entitlements"? I refer to Bush's unfunded Medicare Part D prescription coverage, who's $850 billion cost, along with billions in other unfunded actions, was paid for by the unmtiaged failure currently occupying the White House. This program was rushed through before the 2004 election to buy the support of seniors, who mistakenly view your party as a threat to their entitlements, which make up over half the Federal budget.
http://nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/?referrer=Or is Bush's biggest ever vote purchase exempt because it's aimed the middle class and hugely benefited big pharma by proscribing cost controls? Republicans always aim solely at the crumbs spent on the poor, which have shrunk tremendously since Clinton's welfare reform. At best, 10% of entitlement (not total) spending goes to the poor. Of that, over 90% goes to the elderly, disabled and working poor.
Tax expenditures, on the other hand, hugely benefit the top 20%. They get 66% of that money, with 24% going to the top 1%. The middle 60% gets to strive for the top getting 30% back, and the lowest 20% gets an undeserved 3% of expenditures. Of course, we all know since these aren't entitlements going to the poor, it doesn't count as the richest folks earned our money by all they contribute to job growth.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to?fa=view&id=367Does Dr. Carson's flat tax sound good as a way to move people out of poverty? Even Chris Wallace (!) couldn't stomach his biblically inspired tithing plan, which actually would actually need to be at least 20% without tremendous cuts. The working poor pay no tax now due to the EITC, a Republican giveaway that values work over dependence. Shockingly, the wealthy make out like "bandits", as they do in any flat tax
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-tax-condescending-poorThe notion the poor are the only Americans bribed with and dependent on Federal handouts is completely false. I haven't even touched on the billions in welfare profitable corporations receive with no discernible benefit.
Art, I know you like to ignore my posts, maybe because I provide reliable sources that debunk many widely held beliefs on the right. Perhaps you could actually explain why only the meager entitlements the poor get keep them dependent and buy their votes, while the exponentially larger benefits going to the middle and upper classes aren't worth mentioning. My deluded liberal mind is curious.
And tommorow I'll gladly place blame for the destruction of America's cities on FDR's housing policies, unless someone else wants to field that one.
A true "flat tax" is a great idea, but every flat tax proposed by Republicans has a huge asterisk exempting capital gains and inheritance taxes from the plan. Republicans continue to lie about capital gains taxes in particular. Wealth is overwhelmingly inherited, meaning the person lucky enough to have wealthy parents pays no taxes during their lifetime despite the benefits from the government expenditures designed to promote the gains.
ajc said:
"Of course there are rich people in the Democratic Party but the Republican Party only favors policies that help the rich."
Please, these talking points are so old, and so wrong, I can't believe anyone has the nerve to keep repeating it. Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. Would you mind providing some evidence to support your position?
er, evidence?
How about the last 100 years of American History?
Conifers said:
A true "flat tax" is a great idea, but every flat tax proposed by Republicans has a huge asterisk exempting capital gains and inheritance taxes from the plan. Republicans continue to lie about capital gains taxes in particular. Wealth is overwhelmingly inherited, meaning the person lucky enough to have wealthy parents pays no taxes during their lifetime despite the benefits from the government expenditures designed to promote the gains.
By its nature, any flat is highly regressive, thus greatly benefits the wealthiest at everyone else's expense. Even taxing all income the same wouldn't bring the rate to 10% without slashing spending and entitlements. It also opens a Pandora's Box of potentially huge drags on the economy, particularly eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Flat-Tax.cfmAnd I'm still wondering how collecting income taxes from the 43% of Americans who don't currently pay will help the economy or have any other effect than pushing those folks further down the economic ladder. Entitlement cuts/eliminations would hasten the fall. Those at the bottom will suffer the most by getting a tax hike from nothing to 15-20%, with catastrophic social effects and much higher long term costs to all of us.
dk50b-
It is not regressive. All flat-tax plans include a standard exemption, and some retain the EIC. And even excluding that, the rate may not be progressive but the taxes paid are, and, importantly, the impact will be extremely progressive. Right now, it is the wealthy who are avoiding taxes, not the middle class.
Not to digress but my preference would be a candidate who voted against going into Iraq. If there was ever a moment in recent history to demonstrate intelligence, independence, and critical thinking, that was it. Since Hillary voted for that idiocy, who are the Iraq war dissenters who were in congress at that time?
Conifers said:
dk50b-
It is not regressive. All flat-tax plans include a standard exemption, and some retain the EIC. And even excluding that, the rate may not be progressive but the taxes paid are, and, importantly, the impact will be extremely progressive. Right now, it is the wealthy who are avoiding taxes, not the middle class.
Conifers, you're of course right, a flat tax is obviously a proportional tax. I agree that axing all income equally would do a great deal to bring the taxes paid by the those earning predominantly investment income in line with everyone else. If the EITC remains, then it isn't a flat tax. And I can't see how a reasonable rate can be achieved without enormous entitlement cuts. And though the bulk of the benefits from the Mortgage Interest Deduction flow to the wealthiest, it's a huge crutch for the middle class who's loss would greatly reduce home-ownership among everyone but the wealthy.
Elimination of Social Security and Medicare, assuming that FICA goes away, represents a serious to catastrophic loss of support that most Americans have come to depend on. I'm not aware of any economist who believes a 10% flat tax and allow SS and Medicare to survive. While a flat tax isn't itself regressive, most economists believe the loss of entitlements and tax benefits that would accompany it would have an extremely regressive effect. The huge winners are the rich in any conceivable flat tax scheme.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/12/flat-tax-is-class-warfare
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418604/flat-tax-questionable-economics-bad-politics-reihan-salam
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/10/the-flat-tax-fraud.html
To solve the issue of increasing concentration of wealth at the very top, I don't see many who think a flat tax would help. I do see calls for taxing investment income at a higher rate. Everyone who isn't aware should be reminded the current 20% rate was part of Clinton's Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. And the unending Republican assault on estate taxes guarantees much greater concentration of wealth at the very top.
A flat tax is crank economics. No modern, capitalist society can thrive on a flat tax.
People fail to appreciate how much wealth is in the hands of the 0.01%, who are often paying no taxes at all by living instead by means of borrowing against unrealized capital gains on assets routed tax-deferred into estates and trusts. It is the uber-wealthy who oppose a true flat-tax, which is actually a rather populist notion. Corporate income is now routed directly to senior executives by means of derivatives which are egregiously valued at zero at time of transfer into trusts. This corporate income is never taxed. Republicans lie about "double-taxation" when the truth is zero-taxation. Corporate executives are allowed unlimited "tax deferred" contributions directly from their company into their pensions, while you and I face strict limits. Again, this corporate income is never taxed. Remember, if you borrow against your pension you can spend the money without ever formally realizing the capital gains (and paying any capital gains taxes). The uber-wealthy have no intention to ever pay any taxes and will resist any plan to clean this up.
dk and conifers,
Thank you for turning this absurd and sometimes racist thread into a serious discussion.
Appreciate the thanks. Posting on national sites, I find the false beliefs about who gets and pays for the bulk of entitlements are impossible to convince people aren't true, and carry vile racial overtones. This is the result of the Republican party's constantly blowing the dog whistle for the angry white folks, who take as fact middle class tax money is going to poor, nonworking minorities. As I noted, the only discernible transfers are from the upper to the lower class in entitlement spending, and a much greater transfer from everyone to the very top in tax expenditures. In entitlements alone, the middle 60% gets that amount back.
By only talking about entitlements for the poor, trillions in increasing spending is ignored to focus on a mere sliver. The myth of the lazy welfare queen pumping out huge families is alive and well as a result. It effectively diverts focus from who the real welfare kings and queens are. If you start from a point where people are convinced of a false reality, convincing them of the truth is an exasperating exercise in futility, and a realistic discussion of entitlement and tax reform is impossible.
Shoveling trillions of our money to the top, with a concurrent reduction in the portion of Federal tax receipts paid by corporations from 30 to 10% since the '50's, is by far largest income transfer in the world's history. I welcome anyone to make the case that anyone but our most well off citizens reap the lion's share of Federal redistributions. The only evident effect has been to greatly enrich the already rich.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/Art, care to answer?
I think Art may have left the building. The conversation got too intellectual and informed for his taste. It may cause him to have to read and research the topic which we all know goes against the GOP mantra.
Too many people profit from the complexity of our tax code, so I don't see a way to simplifying it, even though it would be for the better.
drummerboy said:
kthnry said:um, not really.
Art? We look forward to your response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BofddwtPBPw
The right crows about how the left is trying to redistribute wealth, from the top to the bottom. The opposite has been the case for the last 30 years. When will enough be enough and what can be done about it?
"We look forward to your response."
Really? FWIW, the conversation has become a little too left wing for me, plus I'm still counting all those well off folks who reap the lion's share of Federal distributions and the re-distributions. The only problem is separating the already rich from the not so rich, and those really not rich at all.
Then of course there's the problem of vetting all these facts and statistics from the very smart, the not so smart, and those who aren't smart at all. On top of all this I have to weigh the affect of any response I give against the feelings of the gays, lesbians, bi-trans, black and mixed race folks.
It's not easy dealing with all of you and your questions. Plus, it's a lot of pressure to be politically correct all the time. It really cramps my First Amendment Rights; and truthfully I'm really not looking forward to the responses.
ajc said:
"We look forward to your response."
Really? FWIW, the conversation has become a little too left wing for me, plus I'm still counting all those well off folks who reap the lion's share of Federal distributions and the re-distributions. The only problem is separating the already rich from the not so rich, and those really not rich at all.
Then of course there's the problem of vetting all these facts and statistics from the very smart, the not so smart, and those who aren't smart at all. On top of all this I have to weigh the affect of any response I give against the feelings of the gays, lesbians, bi-trans, black and mixed race folks.
It's not easy dealing with all of you and your questions. Plus, it's a lot of pressure to be politically correct all the time. It really cramps my First Amendment Rights; and truthfully I'm really not looking forward to the responses.
ajc said:
"We look forward to your response."
Really? FWIW, the conversation has become a little too left wing for me, plus I'm still counting all those well off folks who reap the lion's share of Federal distributions and the re-distributions. The only problem is separating the already rich from the not so rich, and those really not rich at all.
Then of course there's the problem of vetting all these facts and statistics from the very smart, the not so smart, and those who aren't smart at all. On top of all this I have to weigh the affect of any response I give against the feelings of the gays, lesbians, bi-trans, black and mixed race folks.
It's not easy dealing with all of you and your questions. Plus, it's a lot of pressure to be politically correct all the time. It really cramps my First Amendment Rights; and truthfully I'm really not looking forward to the responses.
Wow! Art, you've hit rock bottom and you're digging deeper.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
"Nah, let's just keep cutting what little the poor have so the ultra-rich can get more and more"
Now you're talking like the real liberals we all know that talk out of both sides of their mouth. I'm sure the ultra-rich you're referring to are the Clinton's, Obama and all his cronies, and their filthy rich donors. Yea, all you bleeding heart liberals talk the talk, but only walk to your own banks. The same banks that are too big to fail.
You all want to vilify the right as if they're monsters, while the truth is it's the lefts lying rhetoric that is destroying our cities and towns across America. Ferguson and Baltimore are only small examples of what Democrats do to a city. How many successful and thriving places "in the whole world" can you point to as examples of liberal left wing success? BTW, I love your talking points:
1. Destroying the middle class by pitting public sector workers against private sector workers.
2. Destroying Unions again to guaranty that the rich get richer.
3. Providing an alternative for poor kids by letting them "volunteer" to fight in whatever foreign hell hole we decide to invade next.
4. Making sure our infrastructure continues to fall apart.
5. Restrict abortion for poor and working class women (the rich will always be able to get one)
6. Crushing the dreams of the Dreamers.
7. Keeping the masses ignorant by denying scientific fact, like evolution and global warming.
8. Keeping them down by convincing them that their enemies are not the rich who rob them every day, but the minorities, immigrants and Gays.
9. Keeping their gun rights.
Lost, you are clearly in the right party pal. These issues are all directly or indirectly, the result of programs and the leadership of the Democrat Party. Carry on...