Sorting out the impact of GOP tax-reform plans
In recent weeks we’ve been confronted by a slew of tax proposals from GOP presidential candidates, ranging from Herman Cain’s “9-9-9″ plan to Rick Perry’s “Cut, Balance and Grow Plan.” For many voters, the details of those various proposals can no doubt get a little hazy and confusing.
To address that problem, I’ve been wanting to put together a comprehensive post addressing all of the plans at once. Thanks to the release of Rick Perry’s plan and a new report on household incomes released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, I finally have the analytical data I needed to pull it all together.
Before we go further, let’s review the CBO findings:
1.) The overall federal tax system became less progressive between 1979 and 2007, thanks largely to the greater relative impact of payroll taxes.
2.) The share of federal transfer payments going to poor Americans also fell sharply, from more than 50 percent to 35 percent. According to CBO, “that shift reflects the growth in spending for programs focused on the elderly population (such as Social Security and Medicare), in which benefits are not limited to low-income households.”
3. The study also documents the ongoing concentration of national income among the richest 1 percent of U.S. households. It found that the share of after-tax income going to the lowest-income 20 percent of Americans fell between 1979 and 2007, dropping from 7 percent to 5 percent. In fact, income share fell by 2 to 3 percent for almost every income group. It rose only among the most affluent 1 percent. Their share of national income more than doubled, from 8 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 2007.
(Although those percentage shifts may not sound like much, in real terms it is quite large. For example, the 7 percent shift in household income from the middle 60 percent of Americans to the richest 1 percent represents a shift of $539 billion a year from the 60 percent to the 1 percent. Overall, the CBO reports that income of the highest-earning 1 percent rose by 275 percent in that time frame, after inflation.)
Anyway, as promised the final exhaustive package on GOP tax-reform plans is available HERE. I’ve put it in the form of an info-graphic. Take a look and if you think I’m missing anything, or if you think of a way to make it clearer, let me know.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
609 comments Add your comment
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:31 pm
Bosch
You made it sound like everyone in that income bracket got there because they were “given” opportunities from our economic system that the other 99% were not given.
To argue that point exclusively is simply wrong.
Jim163
October 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
Paul,
You are wrong. I am a shareholder and it states clearly in the financial report that Buffett only accepts $100k a year in income. The other taxes he refers to are the taxes on returns of capital investments in the forms of dividends which are taxed at a 16% rate. I am just saying that if it excludes employees who exercise options because it is wealth, it should also exclude Buffett.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:33 pm
Bosch,
Its not a lecture, its an opinion
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:33 pm
pat
“Every proposal on the table right now is better than what we have.”
Why?
Armed Liberal
October 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
md – let’s focus on the consumer spending part of your point and abandon the specific HD example – you game?
% of economy supported by Consumer Spending: ???
Delta of same month over month & YoY: ???
What is a prudent response from the gov’t?
md
October 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
“I forgot to add, many of the protestors saw their retirement savings halved or wiped out because the financial house leaders made bad decisions, suffered no repercussions and rewarded themselves with millions in bonuses.”
And who allowed the zero repercussions and the subsequent bonuses??
Our wonderful misfits that had the upper hand yet failed miserably during the negotiation phase……..
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:34 pm
Jim163
“You are wrong. I am a shareholder and it states clearly in the financial report that Buffett only accepts $100k a year in income.”
So…. you are taking the position that Buffet’s IRS Form 1040 shows his total income is $100,000?
Chuck W
October 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
I am not in the top 1% of incomes in America, but I fall somewhere in the top 10%. I got there by risking everything I owned several times, I have worked 70 to 80 hours a week for years, I did things that I didn’t want to do many times. I now have the company that I always wanted and I have put over 200 people to work directly ans many more to work indirectly, but now I am supposed to feel bad about myself because I have been successful, while others haven’t. Oh yeah I shouldn’t say successfull I should say “Fortunate” because the only difference between me and the drunk in the gutter is “LUCK”.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
Gordon
When liberals on the blog makes broad sweeping generalizations about a certain part of society, its an “opinion” but when righties do it, its “judgment.”
Gordon
October 26th, 2011
2:35 pm
Bosch,
How about next time you respond to a post I make you do so based on what I wrote rather than “the general consensus of wingnuts here”. You said “That does not give you the right to judge them”. I guess that word “you” made me think you were talking to me.
Generation$crewed
October 26th, 2011
2:37 pm
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
2:18 pm
Included the word some.
You however did not……
“The 1% of the people who own the wealth in this country did not get it simply because they worked harder than anyone else.”
Then tell us how they got it?
Some did just that and they worked harder than anyone else in their field.
Again I guess we all get to play do as Bosch says but not as he does…..
Seems you are good at casting stones not so much at recieving them, and that is a judgment by me….. one confirmed weekly by your do as I say not as I do type post.
Be consistent….. even with yourself
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:38 pm
Libertarian: From your earlier so called proof of waivers being favored in some way: You gave me an opinion column, and it was also full of lies and no evidence backed up the points made. For example:
Subtitle is an opinion: If some Americans deserve exemption from a bad law, then all Americans do
President Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats all, in their rush to take over America’s health care system – Deemed one of Politifacts’ “Lie of the Year”s
The law, as currently adjudicated, has been ruled unconstitutional. – convenient to point this out without mentioning that it has been ruled constitutional or thrown out many more times than ruled unconstitutional.
The article goes on to call out the same Democrats by name, with links only to bio pages, and no facts to back any of it up. It was an opinion piece, pure and simple. So I ask again:
WHERE
IS
THE
PROOF?
I mean PROOF, not OPINION that it’s favoritism. Not unsubstantiated claims. We get plenty of that right here.
Jefferson
October 26th, 2011
2:38 pm
If income is not fair, it makes sense that taxes are not fair. Equitable at best is all taxes will ever be, those who can change it, don’t want to.
1811/0311
October 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
“OCCUT*RD” ALERT:
Headline: “EXCLUSIVE: Ex-ACORN Operatives Behind the Scene of ‘Occupy’ Protests”
“Former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in ‘leaderless’ Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing ‘guerrilla’ protest events and hiring canvassers to collect money for various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.”
Butch Cassidy
October 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
md – “Once again, the consumers dictate the outcome……not the other way around.”
Not entirely true. Nardelli was shown the door, specifically BECAUSE the consumers stopped supporting HD and their products. As well as his poor decisions in alienating the everyday customer in favor of the big contractors which lead to a huge drop in HD share prices. So in essence, the consumers and the shareholders made it clear that they were NOT happy with HD. In response, HD cut Nardelli loose with a 200 million dollar severence package. Unfortunately, the consumer and the shareholder really have very little to do with the outcome. If that was true, Nardelli would have left town with NOTHING.
Armed Liberal
October 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
Jim163
October 26th, 2011
2:32 pm
You stated that HD employees became part of the 1% based on stock options.
If you really believe that one time earnings via stock options put a person into the 1% of folks that earn that year over year, you are mistaken.
Lotto winners are in the 1% for a year. They don’t stay there.
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
md: One of my major points regarding your choices argument has been that there are choices made FOR people (and not JUST when they are children) that people have no control over. Thank you for finally admitting that I am right:
choice is there….the choice of the one in charge……
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:40 pm
Jim163
“returns of capital investments in the forms of dividends ”
Does that constitute income?
Kamchak
October 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
I now have the company that I always wanted and I have put over 200 people to work directly ans[sic] many more to work indirectly, but now I am supposed to feel bad about myself because I have been successful, while others haven’t.
Perhaps you can show us exactly where anyone suggested you are “supposed to feel bad about {yourself} because {you} have been successful, while others haven’t”?
Thanks in advance.
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:41 pm
md: And who allowed the zero repercussions and the subsequent bonuses??
Well, clearly, the 99% protesters did. Obviously
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
2:42 pm
GS,
“Then tell us how they got it?”
Your google broke?
Seriously, everyone “got it” differently — which is my point. You can’t just say “those guys/gals just worked harder and made good choices” as the basis of your argument when every situation is different and includes different variables.
md
October 26th, 2011
2:43 pm
“% of economy supported by Consumer Spending: ???”
100%
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Chuck W
“but now I am supposed to feel bad about myself because I have been successful, while others haven’t. Oh yeah I shouldn’t say successfull I should say “Fortunate” because the only difference between me and the drunk in the gutter is “LUCK”.”
I don’t think anyone is saying that. What I read is a counter to people who say “I did it all on my own. I had exactly the same situation, the same disadvantages and advantages as everyone else. I got no assistance, in the form of subsidized loans, grants, tax breaks or anything.”
I also think what they’re saying is ‘congratulations on what you’ve done. Many people could not or would not do what you did. But now that you’re at that level, it seems odd to us that those in the top 10 percent should pay a lower percentage of their income than someone making an average household income.”
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Chuck W: <iI now have the company that I always wanted and I have put over 200 people to work directly ans many more to work indirectly
So, Chuck, if we taxed your personal income (not your company’s income, mind you) over 250k at some percentage between 1 and 4% more than it currently is taxed, removing no deductions, would you have to fire people? If your answer is yes. indicate how many you would have to fire and please provide specific reasons as to why.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:44 pm
Sorry Adam, Huffington Post or Daily Kos doesn’t generally write negative articles about Obama so it might be hard to find a “source” you believe. But here’s another:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-half-all-obamacare-waivers-given-union-members_561115.html
The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements. Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements. The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.
OVER HALF have been given to union members. We all know know unions support Dems. Don’t be glib.
md
October 26th, 2011
2:45 pm
“choice is there….the choice of the one in charge……”
“In charge” in relation to legal custody Adam.
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:45 pm
Scout: sources tell FoxNews.com
And you just gave away the game there.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
No Libertarian, it is judging someone when you hold someone to a different standard or accord than you hold yourself or another part of society. It’s judging when you think your mistakes are somehow not as bad as someone elses. It’s judging when you feel a person is somehow less deserving than you.
Generation$crewed
October 26th, 2011
2:46 pm
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:39 pm
Ignorance is not an excuse for bad choices, nor is ignorance being forced into a decision.
Some are not smart or risky enough to make the correct choice. God knows i have made plenty. However I accepted responsibility, and looked for nobody to bail me out or pay my way.
Do you feel the big banks (investement firms) did not have a choice in the bad decisions they made to harm that harmed the economy so much?
Jim163
October 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
Armed.. I completely agree with your last statement.
Paul, returns of capital investments in the form of dividends are not considered income. That is why it is taxed at a different rate. If you don’t believe me go to IRS.GOV.
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
Jim163
To recap, if you look at Buffet’s income from all sources, divide that by the total federal taxes he pays, and do the same for his secretary,
you will find Buffets pays a substantially lower percentage of his income in federal tax than does his secretary.
Kamchak
October 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
The Weakly Standard?
md
October 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
“But now that you’re at that level, it seems odd to us that those in the top 10 percent should pay a lower percentage of their income than someone making an average household income.”
And that is where the misleading comes into play…..for the rate on income tax is already progressive, and the rate on cap gains is the same for both………
That is where the warfare comes in……..intentional misleading by the powers that be……
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:48 pm
Geez Bosch that sounded very much like a lecture. Thanks Daddy. I, for one, have not said one thing about “the poor” or “others” or “people’s mistakes.” So, direct your lecture to someone else there Bud.
philosopher
October 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
I couldn’t tell what was labeled the dumbest comment; but this one gets my vote: “Everyone is where they are in life due to choices they have made at one point or another.”
Did you even THINK about the fact that babies make no choices before they are conceived?? People like you make me hope that we have to come back in another life and that you are born slap dab in the middle of a homeless shelter while maintaining a memory of your present comfy childhood and the arrogant, spoiled, entitled attitude that you have in this life.
1811/0311
October 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
New York Post:
“Ex-ACORN operatives playing role in ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement”
Gather News:
“Who Is Behind Occupy Wall Street?”
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:49 pm
Jim163
Are you now making the case Buffet thinks he makes only $100,000 a year in income?
If you ask him “hey Warren, what’ja’ make last year” he’s gonna say “a hundred grand!”?
Really?
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
md: “In charge” in relation to legal custody Adam.
You say that like it changes something. That still shows the person in question is not making the choices, they are being made FOR them.
Jefferson
October 26th, 2011
2:50 pm
The deficit will never go away until taxes are increase, fact of life.
Chuck W
October 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Kamchak
How about every time that I turn on the television or radio I hear a Democrat state that I do not pay my fair share of taxes. While 49% of the tax payers in the country pay 0% of the federal taxes they want to push my taxes to about 39% or 40%. I have a privately held company, no corporation, so every penny extra they take in taxes is money that I can’t invest in new equipment, new employees, research and delevopment. There are alot of smaller businesses in the same boat.
Generation$crewed
October 26th, 2011
2:51 pm
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
2:42 pm
Backpeddling!
You never arguemed that some of those who are ubber wealthy got it through hard work.
You have repeated the line of question you asked earlier, implying that working harder is not how they got their money.
Go look at your post….
“The 1% of the people who own the wealth in this country did not get it simply because they worked harder than anyone else.”
You say did not get it simply because they ……
When some did and you do not account for those who did earn it that way.
Thus you are making a sweeping judgement that none of them did it by simply outworking others.
Now spin, spin and tell us how you didn’t make that assertion
md
October 26th, 2011
2:52 pm
“People like you make me hope that we have to come back in another life and that you are born slap dab in the middle of a homeless shelter while maintaining a memory of your present comfy childhood and the arrogant, spoiled, entitled attitude that you have in this life.”
If I may chime in……are you saying folks born into this type arrangement are destined to be there forever?? That no matter what they do they can’t better themselves??
Or possibly that they may have a harder road but it will depend on their “choices” as to where they end up?
ty webb
October 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
Philosopher,
I stand by my statement. Have a great day!
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:53 pm
Libertarian: I don’t know if you’re actually vetting these things before you post them, because you gave me ANOTHER opinion piece, with no supporting evidence to back it up. The ONE LINK provided is of a story that is only related because it is written by the author and is about unions. The guy doesn’t even link to the report he quotes in his two paragraph “PROOF” of waivers being favoritism.
I want some actual evidence, not more blog posts. I dont’ need to see it from DailyKos or anywhere else you might think is a liberal media hack, but I do need to see some actual data, evidence, etc. Perhaps you can find out if Congressman Issa has launched an investigation into the subject, since that’s what you usually do if you suspect something, even if there’s no substance. But it would be a start towards showing there might be some actual PROOF one way or the other.
md
October 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
“That still shows the person in question is not making the choices, they are being made FOR them.”
It shows choices are being made by the legal entity Adam…..unless you think kids should have the right to do as they please??
Butch Cassidy
October 26th, 2011
2:54 pm
Chuck W – “There are alot of smaller businesses in the same boat.”
Just do what my buddy Jeff does. He owns a logistics and transportation company near Warner Robbins. He pays himself $7.25 per hour, so he falls well below the $250k threshold for the tax increase. However, he does have all expenses paid for through the company so even on $7.25, he can still afford the Ferrari. Not sure if he uses the EITC, I’ll have to check.
Kamchak
October 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
How about every time that I turn on the television or radio I hear a Democrat state that I do not pay my fair share of taxes.
Sounds like you chose to turn on the television or radio. How about you taking personal responsibility for that?
While 49% of the tax payers in the country pay 0% of the federal taxes…
This crap again?
Many of those 49%ers pay all sorts of federal excise taxes, sport.
Armed Liberal
October 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
Jim163
October 26th, 2011
2:47 pm
I figured I was gonna get waxed and you come back with this?
Man oh man, I was right the first time. You are a dolt.
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
Chuck W: Still waiting on specific reasons why you would have to fire someone from your COMPANY if your PERSONAL income taxes went up on only your income after 250k, OR an answer that you would not have to fire anyone.
Thanks in advance.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
2:55 pm
No, I’m not backpeddling. I am of the opinion that not one single person who is in the top 1% of the income bracket in this country got to where they are due to the fact that they simply outworked other people.
No one gets to where they are based simply upon the amount of work they do. There are many other variables in play, and to over look those is ignorant.
And if you want to base your argument on simple word games, then go for it. It doesn’t change the fact.
md
October 26th, 2011
2:56 pm
Enough time wasted in the time suck……..outta here.
Paul
October 26th, 2011
2:56 pm
Jim163
Let’s back up.
You began with “The 1% does not refer to wealth, it refers to income.
Glad to see that Buffett doesn’t belong to that group because he only accepts an income of $100k. You guys should also quit talking about how he pays less in taxes then his secretary because that is taxes on his wealth not income.”
However, Buffet never made the case you say he did. He did not speak of ‘income.’ Where did you get the idea he did? Some third party radio personality? Here’s what he said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s#t=01m15s
Jim163
October 26th, 2011
2:57 pm
Paul,
I agree with you, that was the reason for the example. Low paid Home Depot employees who exercised options for over a million joined the 1%, albeit for the year exercised. I was told in this blog that was wealth and not income? That is the same exercise of capital that Buffet exercises, but many on this blog don’t consider that wealth, they consider it income for him. Can’t have it both ways.
Adam
October 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
md: You and I are saying the exact same thing, EXCEPT that you still think that choices determine absolutely everything that happens to a person, whether made by them or for them. There are other uncontrolled influences as well.
BUT, my central initial point at this time is that a person does not make all of the choices that lead to their current and future circumstances. And from what I can tell, you agree.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
Adam
I think what I’ve posted is sufficient. You’re acting like a child. As you guys love to say “is your google broke?”
Aquagirl
October 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
I, for one, have not said one thing about “the poor” or “others” or “people’s mistakes.”
….sez the guy calling hisself “Libertarian.” ‘Fess up, you think you’re an island unto yourself.
And remember, when you go squishy on your me-first economics and lie, Ayn Rand rolls over in her 100% privately owned grave.
Misty Fyed
October 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
So…. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the people in the top 1% inherited their entire fortune. How does that change a thing or give you any more right to it?
Paul
October 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
Chuck W
“How about every time that I turn on the television or radio I hear a Democrat state that I do not pay my fair share of taxes. While 49% of the tax payers in the country pay 0% of the federal taxes they want to push my taxes to about 39% or 40%.”
Ummm…. Gov Rick Perry is not a Democrat… he’s a Republican…. and his plan will increase the number of households that ‘pay 0%.’
Adam
October 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
Libertarian: Google isn’t broke, it’s just not finding any evidence. And from you posting only opinion pieces I assume you are having the same trouble finding actual evidence as I am.
Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky)
October 26th, 2011
3:00 pm
“And in a strange kind of way, Occupy Wall Street made me think more fondly of the Tea Party as well.” – Andrew Sullivan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/23/how-i-learned-to-love-the-goddamned-hippies.html
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
Bosch,
If that’s your opinion, that’s fine. You can have opinions. But don’t lecture others for their opinions. If someone want to believe that poor people are poor because they are lazy…that’s their opinion.
stands for decibels
October 26th, 2011
3:01 pm
With “Democrats like these…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/us-usa-debt-supercommittee-idUSN1E79P17S20111026
well, we’re fooked, I guess.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Aquagirl
October 26th, 2011
2:58 pm
Assume what you want about me. Even though you know nothing about me.
stands for decibels
October 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
(Meant to put just the word “Democrats” in snarky bunny ear quotes @ 3.01, but whatever.)
Adam
October 26th, 2011
3:02 pm
Misty Fyed: How does that change a thing or give you any more right to it?
First of all, if true, that blows away the whole concept that people who are at the top simply worked hard to get there. As for the second part of your question, why do you guys keep assuming that taxing people more means other people (liberals, apparently) PERSONALLY get that money? That’s not at all what is being suggested nor is it reality if implemented.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
“If someone want to believe that poor people are poor because they are lazy…that’s their opinion.”
Of course Libertarian, people can also be of the opinion that unicorns crap Skittles and that little green men are the reason for sun spots. And yes, some people are poor because they are lazy, but that is not the primary reason. Simply wishing poor away will not make it happen.
Paulo977
October 26th, 2011
3:04 pm
philosopher
eople like you make me hope that we have to come back in another life and that you are born slap dab in the middle of a homeless shelter
Well said… Karma is powerful!
Paul
October 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
Jim163
“I was told in this blog that was wealth and not income? ”
You’ll find words are used in very creative ways on this blog. That’s why it’s so important to define terms early on… after having some fun, that is. Seems to be the nature of Blogland and it’s easy to get sucked into it.
I think most here would refer to income as $$ that come in to a person over the course of a year, while wealth is the value of the estate.
As far as all the cap gains treatments, that was Buffet’s point just before the start in midstream – that thru such devices, tax advantages have been skewed towards the wealthy. We’ve created legal distinctions in how we treat income from various sources and we tax it at different rates. I think that was his point.
getalife
October 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
The super corrupt congress are not even trying to recover the 15 million jobs the lost .
No jobs no cuts.
Lets cut the corrupt career pols.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
And Bookman, can you PLEASE call the IT department or whomever is in charge of putting pictures on the front page of the ajc.com and get that hideous monstrocity of a woman, Paula Deen, off the page?
Kthx.
Kamchak
October 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
In other words, just about every plan which wanted a waiver appears to have gotten one. In fact, Larsen testified at a Feb. 16 congressional hearing that 14 percent of those denied waivers were union-related plans, compared to 3 percent of all applying — further undercutting the notion of tilting toward unions.
The Pinocchio Test
Barrasso’s statement is misleading and lacks context, even if his numbers are right in the beginning. Nearly half of the workers affected may be in unions, but there is no evidence of favoritism toward unions—or any other group. The waivers affect less than 2 percent of Americans with health insurance. By 2014, if not sooner, the waivers will expire and the companies and workers will have to live under the health care law, like everyone else.
Paul
October 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
sfd 3:01
Sorry, buddy, you’ve been spoofed by a fake website. Democrats don’t want to cut $3 trillion in spending. They want to increase taxes on the job creators by $3 trillion.
Don’t feel badly, could happen to anyone…
Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky)
October 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
Libertarian: “But don’t lecture others for their opinions. If someone want to believe that poor people are poor because they are lazy…that’s their opinion.”
I vehemently reject this view. If you’re holding such views in the silence of your own privacy, that’s one thing. But when you’re voicing that erroneous and misguided view, then you’re giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the people.
Armed Liberal
October 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
A much more elegant phrasing of my initial point:
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Elizabeth Warren is my new hero.
Aquagirl
October 26th, 2011
3:08 pm
Even though you know nothing about me.
I do know you didn’t pick asdfghjki as your handle. There’s a reason for that, unless by startling coincidence your fingers typed out random letters that spell “libertarian.”
And yes, I do breath water.
Chuck W
October 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
Adam
Never said anyone would have to be fired, but there is less money for new invest and maybe more people being hired, which is our government is pretending to care about right now.
Paul
Believe me, I don’t think the republicans are any better than the democrats, I just haven’t heard the republicans talk about raising my taxes, and I thought this is what this discussion is about. I have not believed in the the republican party since they let the bible thumpers take over. I am a libertarian, I believe it is the federal governments job to protect the laws, protect the borders, and protect the people from outside invaders. Everything else they should stay away from because they are awful at it.
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
Bosch – I just can’t believe ya’ll don’t like Paula!
getalife
October 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
The CBO reports that all gop tax proposals benefits the 1 %.
Lets cut all 1 % welfare.
Enough with the 1 % welfare.
Armed Liberal
October 26th, 2011
3:10 pm
Paul and Jim163 – you’re using my poorly designed argument. I was wrong and concede the point.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
“Elizabeth Warren is my new hero”
Mine too, and I suspect a few million other people as well. She will be our POTUS in 2016, you heard it here first.
Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky)
October 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
getalife: “No jobs no cuts.”
This is brilliant. And should be tattooed on the flesh of every occupant of a congressional seat who advances a policy that further immeserates the middle classes and workers of this country. That’s to better ensure that they do not forget the truth.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:12 pm
Reb,
She makes me nauseous, and for those keeping score, YES, I AM judging her, she makes me want to rip the hair from my head and throw myself off a bridge just at the sound of her voice!
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:13 pm
BTW Bosch – I agree with you on the poverty thing. It takes more than not being lazy. There has to be mentoring and opportunity. It’s just the government social engineering opportunity to which I object.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:13 pm
Reb,
Seriously, the reason I hate her so, is that she is fake and gives the good respectable Southern women I know a bad name.
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
OMG, Bosch – Elizabeth Warren is an educated idiot.
getalife
October 26th, 2011
3:16 pm
Thank you Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky).
Sadly, the dems are cutting medicare in their plan.
They are not listening to our Seniors and the AARP.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:16 pm
Reb,
“It’s just the government social engineering opportunity to which I object”
You know, I know this may shock you, but to some degree I agree with you. I actually DO love capitalism, really, I do, and I feel that government intervention in our income is partially to blame for poverty. If we were to just take it away, and let the free market reign supreme, and rely solely on what we earned, then I feel our country and our economy would look very, very different than it does now.
getalife
October 26th, 2011
3:17 pm
reb,
Why is she a “idiot” con?
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
3:17 pm
“I vehemently reject this view. If you’re holding such views in the silence of your own privacy, that’s one thing.”
I guess you are entitled to reject the 1st amendment if you want to.
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:17 pm
Hey Reb! That’s NO way to talk about my new hero.
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:17 pm
Bosch, I don’t dislike Paula to your extent, but she does lay it on too thick for me.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
3:17 pm
Bosch
October 26th, 2011
3:03 pm
Agreed.
Aquagirl
October 26th, 2011
3:18 pm
She makes me nauseous, and for those keeping score, YES, I AM judging her,
Time for a little humor break….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btq3u7oi7K8
*No Paula Deens were really harmed in the making of this video.
1811/0311
October 26th, 2011
3:18 pm
HEY MICK !
Only one for the Coast Guard ………… what’s up with that ?
Headline: “FBI reports gang ‘infiltration’ of U.S. military”
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/fbi-reports-gang-infiltration-us-military
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
getalife – for me, all I had to do was hear her “no body got rich on their own” rant to know she does not know her butt from a hole in the ground. You may see redeeming qualities, but I don’t.
philosopher
October 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
Oh, no- I was simply responding to the amazing arrogance of a person who asserts that it’s ALL about t making the ‘right choices”. Choices made with a roof over his head, food in his belly, and an education all but dropped into his lap are a whole different ballgame from the choices made by a child who grows up having to fight for food and survival on a daily basis. Of course many do succeed, but that is not the norm…most end up in a vicious cycle where few “good” choices are available. And there are many, many other examples of fate affecting choices or limiting choices. Yes, I believe that all things being equal, we could blame lack of success on the choices we make in life…but all things are NOT equal.
Libertarian
October 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
JohnnyReb
October 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
Agreed. If she’s ever our president….yikes.
md
October 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
““You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.”
I couldn’t let that bs go without a comment………just what the heck does “the rest of us paid for” mean?
More class warfare rhetoric implying the guy building the factory isn’t among the “us”………
News flash….he is, and in doing so, we all have the same right to go out and use those roads as we see fit………..without folks like Ms warren trying to lay on some kind of bs guilt trip………
She and “the rest of us” are free to go build our own factories and use those roads “WE ALL” built.
ty webb
October 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Bosch,
regarding Paula Deen, I can’t stand her act either, but Rachel Ray annoys me just a slightly bit more.
Paul
October 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Chuck W
I agree with you on the direction the Republican Party has taken.
As you spend time here, you’ll see a lot of arguing over generalities and a real reluctance by some to address specifics. For instance – the tax rates. Specific proposals have been to raise the top marginal rate for those whose adjusted gross income (after deductions) is $379,150 a year from 35 to 39 percent, where it was under Clinton. There have also been proposals for a 5% surtax for those whose income exceeds a million annually.
There’s an awful lot of talk here that ‘Democrats want all my money’ or about ‘tax increases’ as if they apply to all income levels. They havent.
But now it’s Republicans advocating tax increases (for the lower and middle) and cuts for the wealthy because we have Cain’s and Perry’s plans thrown in.
Anyhow, stick around. It’s a fun asylum.