what we have to look forward to (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania



Message

ROCKHARD -> what we have to look forward to (7/10/2008 2:33:20 PM)

If Obama wins, it’s more than likely that he will take office with a Congress filled with Democrats and liberals. Most probably, the Senate will have at least 55 Democrats (including pickups in Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Alaska). And there might be as many as 62 (possible Democratic pickups include Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Kentucky, Texas, Kansas, and North Carolina). The House will, of course, be solidly in Democratic control. Faced with the same situation in 1993, as he took office as president, Bill Clinton found no alternative but to move dramatically to the left, shelving for the moment his promises of a middle-class tax cut and welfare reform. He had no choice. The Democratic majorities in both Houses served him with notice: Either you stay within the caucus and not cross the aisle in search of support for centrist policies, or we will do unto you what we did to Jimmy Carter when Tip O’Neill turned on him and made his life miserable. Clinton was forced to emphasize healthcare reform over welfare changes and to go with a liberal economic stimulus package capped by big tax increases. The liberal stain sank so deeply into the fabric of his presidency that it caused him to lose Congress in 1994, and almost to lose the 1996 election. It will be the same with Obama. On all of his basic issues, the Democrats in Congress will hold his feet to the fire and make him govern to the left. On his signature issue of Iraq, he may find himself with a war already won, a democracy already stable and a problem already solved. Nevertheless, he will be forced to rip the scab from the wound and set it bleeding again by bringing our troops home prematurely. His healthcare proposals will be forced far to the left until they amount to a government takeover of the healthcare system. Obama will not be able to govern from the center. His party won’t let him do it. Ultimately, Bill Clinton’s congressional supporters became his jailers and he morphed from their leader into their hostage. Dependent on every last Democrat to pass legislation in the House and to prevail over a filibuster in the Senate, he found himself pushed further and further to the left until, he told me, "I don’t even recognize myself." He had to lade his economic and anti-crime package with pork to satisfy urban congressmen and to win their support of a bill that included a federal death penalty. Obama will not be able to help himself. The Democratic majority in Congress won’t settle for triangulation. They will make the Obama of November into a liar and the Obama of the primaries into an honest man. © 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann      " dick morris was the #1 political aide and friend to clinton in the whitehouse"



waDerboy -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/10/2008 3:32:27 PM)

Faced with the exact opposite situation, a congress crammed full of conservatives and republicans in both houses, our current president felt all he could do was play to his base. Call a meeting of all the big oil players to chat about energy policy with the veep behind closed doors ,how has that worked out for the country so far. Started a war with Iraq because Sadam tried to wack his old man, mission accomplished, oh I didn't mean the war just the initial stage of it now they'll start throwing flowers at us, taking a long time to open those flower shops I guess. I could go on but I'm tired of all the partisan crap from both sides. All I know is I'm middle class at most (if that), I don't get a dime I don't earn and I am better off personally when the Dems are in control.



saltflyfisher -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/10/2008 4:39:32 PM)

Rock, if the repub. loose a lg amt of seats it's no ones fault but their own. The chances are we'll see more stuff done in the last months than what has been done w/ the majority of 6+ yrs and that won't be much either.

My wife and I are still not sure if we're even going to vote this yr for a pres. It may just be obama, being I can't afford another bush term.



ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/10/2008 9:33:38 PM)

i agree there wb,, no one party should have full power, difference is, repubs never had the full control that you will see dems have this november,,i work for every dime i get too,i never ask govt for nothing,,, i am center,maybe little right of center, only because i feel the money i do make should be mine,not given to whoever feels like they dont need to earn their own ,, with the dems, we will have more redistribution of wealth and social programs enacted to give to these "GOVT OWES IT TO ME" type thinkers... dont mind giving to charity ,but damn if i am going to support someone elses lifestyle,,, i notice most people are against wealthy ciyizens of this nation, why, everyone in this country has,had same opportunity to become wealthy also, go out and get it,,this class envy is the making of a liberal type agenda to take from the haves and give to the lazy, you owe it to me sector ,,, salty, you have to vote, even if you vote 3rd party or write in mickey mouse, make it count



rapala11 -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 12:06:07 AM)

i am center,maybe little right of center.................not on a cold day in hades.  be honest.



spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 12:34:54 AM)

 
 
 
"this class envy is the making of a liberal type agenda to take from the haves and give to the lazy"  

As opposed to the conservative agenda of " take from those that have a little, and give to those who have the most", in the hopes that they MIGHT let a little "trickle" back down. Bush I, called it voo-doo economics. Too bad he, nor his son didn't hold true to that belief.
 
Which way is wealth being re-distributed, rock? Seems the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer"


 
During the last half-century the distribution of income and wealth in America has become more and more unequal. Even during the 1990s, a period of sustained expansion, most of the growth in income and wealth was concentrated among the top 10% of households. By 2000 this group accounted for 44% of total household income, compared with 33% in 1980.

Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations.

A recent study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest households. The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% -- compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year, more than the lost revenues from tax cuts for the 80% of families making less than $100,000. Ninety billion dollars a year is more than enough to pay for the comprehensive health-care plan proposed by John Kerry and for the promises President Bush himself made but has not funded in his No Child Left Behind education bill.

As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped. And that's before the elimination of the estate tax scheduled to take effect at the end of the decade, which will further reduce taxes on the wealthiest households.



saltflyfisher -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 6:42:48 AM)

Rock, we'll vote. But it's interesting to see that this is the best we have to choose from from either party.
quote:

ORIGINAL: ROCKHARD

i agree there wb,, no one party should have full power, difference is, repubs never had the full control that you will see dems have this november,,i work for every dime i get too,i never ask govt for nothing,,, i am center,maybe little right of center, only because i feel the money i do make should be mine,not given to whoever feels like they dont need to earn their own ,, with the dems, we will have more redistribution of wealth and social programs enacted to give to these "GOVT OWES IT TO ME" type thinkers... dont mind giving to charity ,but damn if i am going to support someone elses lifestyle,,, i notice most people are against wealthy ciyizens of this nation, why, everyone in this country has,had same opportunity to become wealthy also, go out and get it,,this class envy is the making of a liberal type agenda to take from the haves and give to the lazy, you owe it to me sector ,,, salty, you have to vote, even if you vote 3rd party or write in mickey mouse, make it count




ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 8:41:56 AM)

close the loopholes,thats the problem,,also left out the top 1% pay 60%of the national tax intake,,, no doubt they got richer,but got to remember,bush is a globalist,for the wealthy, cant blame that on conservatism,,,and rap,not on a cold day,well i would call you on that,,, i havent voted party lines for at least 20yrs,, see tax cuts arent a problem,its the loopholes that are left in place for the wealthy,, a flat tax would solve that,a national sales tax all will pay for products,, instead of percentage of income,,,i listened to a talk show during the early primaries,talking to 3 wealthy americans,networth over 10 million /yr each,, all 3 said they dont mind paying a higher tax rate,if the money was to benefit all sectors of america,not just select handful who govt deem eligable,that is main opposition to tax increase on wealthy,,, now my opinion, tax the rich to benefit the lower income families,then that dries up,so now we go after the middle class to benefit the lower class,before you know it we have no middle class,very few wealthy,except for the globalist elite that without a middle class,will have pushed their marxist agenda forward,, remember marxism,socialism is the elimination of the middle class,so remember,redistribution of wealth is the beginning of a socialistic society,that from there can not be stopped



rapala11 -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 8:49:05 AM)

 a flat tax would solve that

rock, this is opposed by the wealthy.  as spoon said, the tax breaks that we got paled to the breaks for the wealthy.  the idea behind it was the wealthy would dump more into business and the like, creating more jobs and boosting the economy.  didn't happen. they invested to make more.  the trickle down never happened.

scripture has it 'that is is harder for a rich man to get to through the eye of a needle (gate) than it is for him to get to heaven'.  all injustices will be dealt with at a later time.  all i know is that i sleep real good at night, knowing that i never harmed anyone (intentionally) and that i made a stand for justice and peace. 



ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 9:23:03 AM)

opposed by the wealthy,,exactly,,thats why we should enact it,, i know it didnt work the way it was meant to be,but if we didnt try i think we would have been worse off than now,,, lots of up front corp., have expanded to benefit more jobs,invested in measures to upgrade their competiveness in the world market to employ more people,,not all corp., are greedy wealthy no goods,, some are, stop their loopholes, not punish the whole over a few,, company i work for started in late 80's with govt funded grants,very rough for first 5 yrs,no profit,but as things improved,they havent stopped with upgrades thru profits, just this past january, 250,00,000/dollar investment back into our operation.,,,,not all are corp greed,, punish ones who are ,leave others to keep investing the way they have



rapala11 -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 9:35:46 AM)

your company is foreign-owned, correct.  they don't pay personal income tax here if they live there.  they pay corporate taxes. 



ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 9:50:30 AM)

we just became foreign owned over last 18 months, no they live in MOSCOW,,, WOW,could you believe that ,a former arch enemy owning a U.S. based company,, a truely world market,,, but i also told you in earlier posts that they will keep operations here depending on corp. tax increases,,,,, in response to income tax,, our management and corp. leaders are americans that do pay income tax,,,



spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 10:47:54 AM)

"also left out the top 1% pay 60%of the national tax intake,,"


Wrong AGAIN.,
  • According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
  • The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
  • The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
  • The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.

Keep in mind.

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth



ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:20:22 AM)

ok ,spoon ,my mistake on the 1%,meant to type 10%,, give me the death penalty,, still stated they carry the tax burden,even in your statement,,, top 1%,..35% paid of all income taxes,,



RIZ -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:25:20 AM)

so spoon what's your point?  that poor people don't pay taxes and rich people pay most of them?  your not making a very good argument for YOUR side.



spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:27:51 AM)

So that got me to thinking about how fair the tax system really is. Do the well-off pay their fair share, or do they also deserve a tax break?
Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.



spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:31:47 AM)

The point Riz, is that they pay more, because they HAVE even MORE.

ANOTHER part of the point:

the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped.



Carpet Bagger -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:34:50 AM)

Hey just think if we didnt have a war going on costing us billions and trillions ....um...we would have alot of money to do all kinds of things for both rich and poor people...give back to the poor...and have tax breaks for the upper class and probaly not be so in debt with the worlds....WOW it all seems so simple, but every jagoff we put in office just Fs-UP




spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:36:48 AM)

So I repeated Warren Buffett’s experiment here at Wharton. And it appears that I’m paying lower taxes than the administrative staff in my department. And if it is true here, I suspect the same goes equally for most folks in the top 10 percent of income earners. (Incidentally, according to Piketty and Saez, around half of all income in the U.S. goes to those of us in the top decile (10%).



spoonchucker -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:50:08 AM)

October 5, 2007

The new White House “fact sheet” on the economy declares that job growth since August 2003 is the “longest continuous months of job growth on record.”
That’s literally true – the Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the great jobs boom of the 1990s do show a couple of scattered months of job decline, although these are probably statistical blips. But by any reasonable standard, job growth in the Bush years has fallen way short of growth in the Clinton years.
All the data are available at the BLS web site.
Over the whole of the Clinton administration, the economy added 22.7 million jobs – 237,000 per month.
Over the whole of the Bush administration to date, the economy added only 5.8 million jobs – 72,000 per month.
The Bushies like to pretend that history began in August 2003, so that they can ignore the job losses early in the administration. But even that doesn’t do the trick. Since August 2003, the economy has added 8.5 million jobs – 172,000 per month. So even by cherry-picking the good Bush years and pretending the bad years never happened, they still can’t match the average rate of job creation under Clinton.
Now, you might say that Clinton doesn’t deserve all the credit for good things that happened on his watch – and I agree. But it’s the Bushies who are trying to spin a mediocre job record into proof that their policies are wonderful.
Did I mention that the Clinton job boom followed an, um, increase in taxes?



rapala11 -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 11:57:51 AM)

Hey just think if we didnt have a war going on costing us billions and trillions ....um...we would have alot of money to do all kinds of things for both rich and poor people

cb, you rock, man.  i have a tee shirt that says, war is costly, try peace....

think how much better off we would have been using that money for people purposes (and restocking pymy with walleye). 



ROCKHARD -> RE: what we have to look forward to (7/11/2008 8:33:21 PM)

you know ,the war in iraq ,did cost billions of dollars, but just think all the pork money the politicians didnt get, wonder how many give me programs we can have, the working man wouldnt see any of it,, war is costly,i agree, but so are the social give-away programs to,,, yea spoon,warren buffett,not going to hurt him none ,but take the average "RICH", YOU KNOW THE 250,000/YR MAN, NOW THAT IS ALOT TO MY STANDARDS, BUT IS HE RICH, i dont think so,comfortable,yes,but not rich,  this is why we need a flat tax across the board,then everyone is on same playing field,,,, yes spoon they pay more cause they have more,, so what this means,lets say for issue here, you make 25,000,with 2 kids and file married,,i dont think you pay no tax ,plus get child earned tax back on top, dont you,, or you make 25,000, and i make 50,000,so i should be penalized cause i make more than you,where does the line get drawn



Page: [1]



   

0.047