Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[DonDadda59]

You want a system that simply does not work? Communism, socialism, austerity. It DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked anywhere else before, and it's not going to work here.

Ah, when all else fails and you have no real response to the truth, bust out the Faux News bullshit talking points



Facts are facts, homie. It's time to come to terms with reality, Boehner and his minions made it seem like they are ready to face facts and get off the Norquist leash after this morning's meeting. Hopefully they will be sensible and follow through so we can continue on the right path and right the wrongs of failed theories.

[bdreason]

So Obama won the election by pandering to the minority?

[Loneshot]

Past: Bring african slaves over for free labor. Free them, destroy their communities via terrorism/drugs.
Result: D'oh!

Past: Rape, vilify, and steal from Mexicans, and then let them into the country to exploit them in the workforce.
Result: D'oh!

[Jailblazers7]

Really good article by Paul Volcker about the future of the country for anyone interested in a serious non-partisan opinion.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

[joe]

So in summary, as you can clearly see- the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth and everyone reaps the benefits of 'trickle down' wealth is a lie. The facts show that the times of highest job creation, highest gross domestic product (gdp), wealth parity, etc coincide with the times of the highest top tax rate.

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

And to say Romney has "built his entire economic plan" around lower taxes is ridiculous. Romney supports barely lower taxes than Obama. I support ZERO income tax. Romney is hardly better than Obama on taxes...he's a marginal difference.

[joe]

Well, they aren't. Which is why we need to funnel some money down there so maybe they can live, period.

Anyway, income disparity IS a big deal if the poor can't eat. If it gets too big, this happens:

Having an income disparity in itself is not a big deal if the poor can't eat.... the big deal is that the poor can't eat. The fact that other people are rich is irrelevant to the problem of the poor not having food.

The only scenario in which the income disparity would truly matter is in a world with a fixed amount of goods. So there's a fixed amount of food, a fixed amount of blankets, a fixed amount of medicine, etc. In that case sure, if the rich have all the resources... that has a direct effect on the poor.

But we obviously do not live in a world like that. The supply of goods can be raised or lowered. We can produce more food, more blankets, more medicine. So the question we must be asking ourselves is, how do we raise the supply? How do we make it so everyone, even the poor, have an abundance of goods? Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor does not grow the amount of goods in the world, it just redistributes the ones we already have.

Contrary to your beliefs, the rich are the last people we want to tax if the mission is to help the poor. It's the rich who supply all of us with the material goods we've come to take for granted. Xbox, television, laptops, kerosene, cigarettes, grocery stores.... those things all made people rich. And it was the human drive to become rich that propelled their creation in the first place. The higher you tax the rich, the less attractive it will be for people to create things like this in the future. And then the poor will be really in trouble.

[Droid101]

To add insult to injury, the taxation you levy on the rich decreases the overall incentive to be rich in the first place, and it's often the rich people and their businesses which are creating the material goods in the economy.

I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!

[Lakers Legend#32]

Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.

[DonDadda59]

No, I can't clearly see that. All I've seen is a bunch of statistics thrown out. Statistics don't prove anything definitively. I'm not anti-statistic, but statistics can only be used to buffer your argument, they can't be the entire basis of your argument. I can just as easily say all of those economies would have been doing EVEN BETTER with lower tax rates, and at that point it's just my word against yours. There's no substance to anything you posted. There's plenty of statistics that show the 19th century in America was the greatest century EVER in terms of improving the living standards of humans, and this occurred with a zero percent income tax and a gold standard! So are you going to change your position to be pro-gold standard now? According to the way you argue your case, you should.

Those are the quantifiable results of a comprehensive study done that covered about 70 years in this country in regards to top tax rate and its correlation to economic barometers. The findings clearly show that the times of highest growth, highest gdp, wealth parity, etc coincide with times of the highest top tax rate. These are facts. What you posted, or rather didn't, lacks substance. I asked you to provide facts or anything that can back up the claim that lower taxes leads to a better economy. You gave me nothing, because there is nothing tangible to support that claim.

Please explain why raising taxes on the rich would improve the economy, without using any statistics. Explain why! Why does that make any sense? Why would taking money from some people who earned it, and then giving it to the government, create a better economy? Just explain how that makes any sense. Please. I'm not saying a good argument can't be made, but I haven't seen it yet in this thread.

With more tax revenue, the government can invest in more infrastructure projects which creates more jobs. The increased revenue could (and will) be used to help reduce the deficit. larger deficits coincide with high interest rates which can lead to inflation and lower consumer/investor confidence which in turn affects the stock market (a taste of what we saw on wall street in the days after the election, the fear of the country going over the fiscal cliff being one of the main catalysts of the decline). With a higher deficit, we have less national savings which decreases the funds we have to invest in new business. So having more tax revenue on hand (coupled with lower spending) would cut into the deficit, thereby reversing the damage caused to our economy as a whole in addition with providing national savings for investments.

Again, look at the facts- they tell the whole story. An in depth study on how increased taxes affects the economy:

RECENT STUDIES FIND RAISING TAXES ON HIGH-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS WOULD NOT HARM THE ECONOMY:
Policy Should Be Included in Balanced Deficit-Reduction Effort

[joe]

I know! It's so hard being rich, right!? It's so much easier being poor and living on free food stamps from the government!

I didn't say it's easy to be poor, and I do not villify the poor. I for one grew up in a lower income family. I do not trivialize the difficult of growing up without a lot of money.

I am just talking about the reality of the situation. If all income above $250,000 is taxed at 50%, less people will strive to earn $250,000 than if the tax was 0%. If you raise the tax to 60%, even less people will strive for $250,000. Why put all the time and effort into building a business if the government is just going to tax half your income?

"Yeah but rich people only pay like 2 cents in taxes in America!"

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.

[joe]

Do some rich people get their millions by leeching off of government? Do they get rich by screwing over the people, by using the government to fix the laws in their favor? Yes. But those aren't the people I'm talking defending. The rich people we should praise are the ones who make their money honestly, through voluntary market exchange. The guys who create a product or service we all love. Sure they get rich off of it, but why shouldn't they? Things like handheld foot massagers, recliner chairs, chess boards... why shouldn't the people who manufacture these things get rich? They provide us with great products at great prices. I don't see why I'm supposed to hate these guys, or why I'm supposed to prefer the government to be spending their profits rather than them.

[Scoooter]

Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.

[joe]

Why does progressive taxation = hatred? You're too emotional about other people's money joe.

Nahhh that's not what I'm saying. It's hard to read tone over the internet. I was just saying like, "Man, I love all of these products I'm provided by businesses. Why am I supposed to hate these guys??" Not sure the word I'm looking for, I wasn't being vile though. My tone was nice in my head, you just can't read it the way I am saying it

[rufuspaul]

Non-sense. Some do, if they earn their money off of dividends. But don't forget, those dividends were already taxed when the corporation paid their 35% tax. So though the dividends are only taxed at like 12%, they were already taxed once before at a much higher rate. Add them up, and the true rate is much higher than any secretary pays (and Warren Buffet is full of you-know-what).

And if you run a business, and thus earn "income" as opposed to dividends, you are paying 35% in taxes. Add to that your state tax, entitlement tax, sales tax, and you're approaching 50% taxes, or even higher in some states! Half of the money that you worked your ass off to earn... gone. Why do we want to do this to rich business people? These are people that create jobs, provide services, truly add value to society... and we punish them by taking half of their money. Forget how the rich person feels about this, why should even the POOR feel good about this? It's not to our advantage to treat rich people like this, just from a practical standpoint. We want these guys creating jobs and inventing new products for us to use. We don't want them giving half of their money to Washington, so they can blow it on drone strikes and dimwit regulators salary.

So true. If you're like me and actually saving for retirement instead of expecting to freeload off the government, most of your retirement income will be taxed (for the 2nd time) at the capital gains rate. Raising this rate punishes people who worked hard and saved and invested.

[Math2]

Romney's strategy was to win by giving gifts to millionaires and billionaires.

Of course, if you believe the crap Obama says.