Dear Teabaggers

[ritz627]

Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

Wait, I thought George W. Bush hated the poor.

Dear Liberals, please stop complaining about George W. Bush and tax cuts!

But the economy turned out so well!

Yes, it did. 52 straight weeks of job growth and steady expansion from 2003 - 2007. But let's assume you're right. Then maybe we should have raised taxes on the poor and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Really?? Raise taxes on the poor. That's your solution? Not even the most far right congressperson would propose that. Raising taxes on the poor wouldn't result in that much more revenue. People in that situation live day to day and I know that because Ive seen it first hand. The only thing that raising taxes on poor people would do is put more people on the streets.

And btw, do you even have the slightest idea as to how this recession began?? It happened because banks were making bad loans that they knew people couldn't pay off. There was a lack of regulation on wall street and people got greedy. It wasnt from taxes.

You also have to understand that there are lags in the effects of economic policy. To make the claim the Obama is at fault for this is insane. Claiming that just shows a lack of knowledge in economic principles, and the cause of the recession itself. The recession began right at the beginning of Obama's term. It would take some very major immediate changes for Obama to cause that. But in fact Obama really didn't change much economically compared to Bush when he first came in.

[ritz627]

Ah good call, I didnt see that. I guess the sales tax thing kinda doesn't make sense with regard to that particular sentence, haha. Overall tough, the article discusses "total taxes as a percentage of personal income," which the reasons do pertain to.

really.....hmmmm

Yea, unlike like some people...Im willing to admit when Im wrong

[ritz627]

Why do you think you are far to the left? Are you far to the left on everything or just on some issues? What things are important to you?

I mean I know Im just gonna get a lot of sh*t for being far left...but I am, just letting you know. And equal opportunity is most important to me.

[Phatscotty]

Ah good call, I didnt see that. I guess the sales tax thing kinda doesn't make sense with regard to that particular sentence, haha. Overall tough, the article discusses "total taxes as a percentage of personal income," which the reasons do pertain to.

really.....hmmmm

Yea, unlike like some people...Im willing to admit when Im wrong

oh, sure, you admitted you were wrong, and then blew right over that into standing by the original statement anyways.

btw, I can admit when I am wrong, but that need has not yet arisen...

[ritz627]

Ritz. what is your problem with the Tea Party?

Well, i guess if i had to put it simply...the many tea party members are not politically educated, and are just pissed off because the economy isn't doing well and they need something to yell about. They don't know what they are talking about, and get their information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their almighty leader Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is f***ing retarded and everyone knows it. It's embarrassing. They are far, far to the right, and I am far to the left.

I completely disagree with almost all of that. Where did you get that information?

how do you know the "tea party's" education level? what is the avereage democrat voters education level while your at it??? ???
how do you know what they are pissed off about?

I am familiar with the tea party platform. you covered the party with about the broadest stroke possible. care to begin getting specific?

Alright... maybe a little too biased. You're right, they aren't all retarded. I admit, I'm glad that they are bringing issues like unemployment to the plate...I just severely disagree with them when it comes to their solutions. I disagree with them in just about every social issue imaginable, i could list them all but it's pointless. Granted, Obama's response to the recession was pretty mediocre, and I honestly was hoping and expecting that he would do more. He still can though.

[ritz627]

Ah good call, I didnt see that. I guess the sales tax thing kinda doesn't make sense with regard to that particular sentence, haha. Overall tough, the article discusses "total taxes as a percentage of personal income," which the reasons do pertain to.

really.....hmmmm

Yea, unlike like some people...Im willing to admit when Im wrong

oh, sure, you admitted you were wrong, and then blew right over that into standing by the original statement anyways.

btw, I can admit when I am wrong, but that need has not yet arisen...

Well...you haven't really said much...

[ritz627]

I am far to the left.

You're far out there, that's for sure

For an American, yes...for a European, no

[ritz627]

Ah good call, I didnt see that. I guess the sales tax thing kinda doesn't make sense with regard to that particular sentence, haha. Overall tough, the article discusses "total taxes as a percentage of personal income," which the reasons do pertain to.

really.....hmmmm

Yea, unlike like some people...Im willing to admit when Im wrong

oh, sure, you admitted you were wrong, and then blew right over that into standing by the original statement anyways.

btw, I can admit when I am wrong, but that need has not yet arisen...

And I did respond on the bottom of pg 2

[rockfist]

Why do you think you are far to the left? Are you far to the left on everything or just on some issues? What things are important to you?

I mean I know Im just gonna get a lot of sh*t for being far left...but I am, just letting you know. And equal opportunity is most important to me.

Fair enough. I am with you in that poor children that show promise deserve help. But, the biggest inequality we have is the genetics that are there from the moment of conception and persists through our early childhood days with some parents being more capable and involved in raising their kids. I don't believe that any government program no matter how much it gets funded can equal out those things.

[DangerBoy]

Really?? Raise taxes on the poor. That's your solution? Not even the most far right congressperson would propose that. Raising taxes on the poor wouldn't result in that much more revenue. People in that situation live day to day and I know that because Ive seen it first hand. The only thing that raising taxes on poor people would do is put more people on the streets.

I was joking in the context of how Iliad was responding.

And btw, do you even have the slightest idea as to how this recession began?? It happened because banks were making bad loans that they knew people couldn't pay off. There was a lack of regulation on wall street and people got greedy. It wasnt from taxes.

No way Jose! The banks were forced to make those bad loans because of the Community Reinvestment Act. Failure to loan to people who couldn't afford paying it back would result in a lowered CRA rating.

You also have to understand that there are lags in the effects of economic policy. To make the claim the Obama is at fault for this is insane. Claiming that just shows a lack of knowledge in economic principles, and the cause of the recession itself. The recession began right at the beginning of Obama's term. It would take some very major immediate changes for Obama to cause that. But in fact Obama really didn't change much economically compared to Bush when he first came in.

Obama is not solely to blame for the bad economy. Bush gave in to pressure for a mini-bailout compared to Obama's. He even said that he abadoned free market principles to save the economy - FAIL! I guess we are sort of agreeing on that point. However, Obama is to blame for being so irresponsible as to think that a huge spending spree could get us out of this financial mess. Instead of restraining himself, he chose to ramp up the spending to a level which is going to cripple us because of interest on the debt. On top of that, he got Congress to push through a health care bill which we can't afford to fund.

[Phatscotty]

Perhaps the stimulus bill was a bad idea?



USA just hit 100% of debt/GDP. Healthcare has not even been heaped on top of that yet...

Ummm, the economy had better turn around mighty fast and hard if we want to make up for all last years borrowing...that was the plan, right?

[rockfist]

I blame the Clinton administration and the Democrats and corporatist Republicans in Congress for the housing crisis. They pressured banks to make loans to unworthy borrowers by using the CRA act as leverage. The Democrats and Corporatist Republicans in Congress demanded the dismantling of Glass Stegal as a payoff for their wall street friends and for the large banks and mortgage companies making the bad loans. If Wall Street firms were still general partnerships, as they were for much of the 20th century, rather than being corporations they would've resisted this madness, but corporations can pass the buck to the shareholders while the management still gets rich, just as Congress can pass the buck on the blame.

[ritz627]

Really?? Raise taxes on the poor. That's your solution? Not even the most far right congressperson would propose that. Raising taxes on the poor wouldn't result in that much more revenue. People in that situation live day to day and I know that because Ive seen it first hand. The only thing that raising taxes on poor people would do is put more people on the streets.

I was joking in the context of how Iliad was responding.

And btw, do you even have the slightest idea as to how this recession began?? It happened because banks were making bad loans that they knew people couldn't pay off. There was a lack of regulation on wall street and people got greedy. It wasnt from taxes.

No way Jose! The banks were forced to make those bad loans because of the Community Reinvestment Act. Failure to loan to people who couldn't afford paying it back would result in a lowered CRA rating.

You also have to understand that there are lags in the effects of economic policy. To make the claim the Obama is at fault for this is insane. Claiming that just shows a lack of knowledge in economic principles, and the cause of the recession itself. The recession began right at the beginning of Obama's term. It would take some very major immediate changes for Obama to cause that. But in fact Obama really didn't change much economically compared to Bush when he first came in.

Obama is not solely to blame for the bad economy. Bush gave in to pressure for a mini-bailout compared to Obama's. He even said that he abadoned free market principles to save the economy - FAIL! I guess we are sort of agreeing on that point. However, Obama is to blame for being so irresponsible as to think that a huge spending spree could get us out of this financial mess. Instead of restraining himself, he chose to ramp up the spending to a level which is going to cripple us because of interest on the debt. On top of that, he got Congress to push through a health care bill which we can't afford to fund.

Ha sarcasm difficult to detect on this thing.

But I never said Bush didn't work to prevent it. Besides, it's difficult to just blame a president for what happened, but Im just saying those who say Obama caused it don't understand economics. However... if you say his attempts to fix it have been poor, you have a point.

[Phatscotty]

it doesnt matter whos fault it is. gov't needs to cut spending right mother fucking now

[ritz627]

I blame the Clinton administration and the Democrats and corporatist Republicans in Congress for the housing crisis. They pressured banks to make loans to unworthy borrowers by using the CRA act as leverage. The Democrats and Corporatist Republicans in Congress demanded the dismantling of Glass Stegal as a payoff for their wall street friends and for the large banks and mortgage companies making the bad loans. If Wall Street firms were still general partnerships, as they were for much of the 20th century, rather than being corporations they would've resisted this madness, but corporations can pass the buck to the shareholders while the management still gets rich, just as Congress can pass the buck on the blame.

I would have to agree. Im leftist...but i certainly dont identify with the democratic party...mostly because they have a problem with standing up for what they say they stand up for, and sometimes completely contradict what they say they work for (like in the example you just gave...democrats should have been working towards greater bank regulation, but they did the opposite). But then again, you can say this about nearly every political party or politician. No one's innocent in Washington when it comes to deals like that. Unfortunately, these sort of things have become the order of the day. In my opinion, in order to eliminate these kinds of deals, there simply must less corporate involvement in Washington - less monetary political contributions, and less commercialization of elections.

I believe that America is fast coming to a point where we need to ask if ourselves if our system is broken, or if it is just all of our politicians.

[Phatscotty]

I blame the Clinton administration and the Democrats and corporatist Republicans in Congress for the housing crisis. They pressured banks to make loans to unworthy borrowers by using the CRA act as leverage. The Democrats and Corporatist Republicans in Congress demanded the dismantling of Glass Stegal as a payoff for their wall street friends and for the large banks and mortgage companies making the bad loans. If Wall Street firms were still general partnerships, as they were for much of the 20th century, rather than being corporations they would've resisted this madness, but corporations can pass the buck to the shareholders while the management still gets rich, just as Congress can pass the buck on the blame.

I would have to agree. Im leftist...but i certainly dont identify with the democratic party...mostly because they have a problem with standing up for what they say they stand up for, and sometimes completely contradict what they say they work for (like in the example you just gave...democrats should have been working towards greater bank regulation, but they did the opposite). But then again, you can say this about nearly every political party or politician. No one's innocent in Washington when it comes to deals like that. Unfortunately, these sort of things have become the order of the day. In my opinion, in order to eliminate these kinds of deals, there simply must less corporate involvement in Washington - less monetary political contributions, and less commercialization of elections.

I believe that America is fast coming to a point where we need to ask if ourselves if our system is broken, or if it is just all of our politicians.

Have you considered the tea party? You are really sounding like a tea bagger, honest.

[ritz627]

it doesnt matter whos fault it is. gov't needs to cut spending right mother fucking now

Agreed...in a way...I believe that need to cut spending by ending the Iraq War as soon as possible, but they need to spend more money on building up infrastructure. Just like in the Great Depression, spending on infrastructure can employ the unemployeed, give money to those who need it, and improve our economic efficiency. Our train system, for instance, desperately needs an upgrade.

[Timminz]

Why are all you republicans responding to this whacko's calling out of scrotum suckers?

[ritz627]

Why are all you republicans responding to this whacko's calling out of scrotum suckers?

...yea...im a real crazy...

[DangerBoy]

Yeah, ritz totally changed his demeanor from his opening post.

*Not sarcasm*

[ritz627]

I blame the Clinton administration and the Democrats and corporatist Republicans in Congress for the housing crisis. They pressured banks to make loans to unworthy borrowers by using the CRA act as leverage. The Democrats and Corporatist Republicans in Congress demanded the dismantling of Glass Stegal as a payoff for their wall street friends and for the large banks and mortgage companies making the bad loans. If Wall Street firms were still general partnerships, as they were for much of the 20th century, rather than being corporations they would've resisted this madness, but corporations can pass the buck to the shareholders while the management still gets rich, just as Congress can pass the buck on the blame.

I would have to agree. Im leftist...but i certainly dont identify with the democratic party...mostly because they have a problem with standing up for what they say they stand up for, and sometimes completely contradict what they say they work for (like in the example you just gave...democrats should have been working towards greater bank regulation, but they did the opposite). But then again, you can say this about nearly every political party or politician. No one's innocent in Washington when it comes to deals like that. Unfortunately, these sort of things have become the order of the day. In my opinion, in order to eliminate these kinds of deals, there simply must less corporate involvement in Washington - less monetary political contributions, and less commercialization of elections.

I believe that America is fast coming to a point where we need to ask if ourselves if our system is broken, or if it is just all of our politicians.

Have you considered the tea party? You are really sounding like a tea bagger, honest.

Haha...trust me they're not my thing.

Like I said...they bring up questions that need to be asked...I just disagree with just about every one of their solutions.

[ritz627]

Yeah, ritz totally changed his demeanor from his opening post.

*Not sarcasm*

Ha demeanor yes...opinion no. I was kinda joking with that post on teabaggers being that retarded...but again, sometimes thats difficult to detect.

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, ritz totally changed his demeanor from his opening post.

*Not sarcasm*

Ha demeanor yes...opinion no. I was kinda joking with that post on teabaggers being that retarded...but again, sometimes thats difficult to detect.

Just the use of the word tea bagger to describe the Tea party is derogatory term. You are participating in spreading the hate and division. This country and it's liberal media have concluded the Tea party is a real grass roots movement with real solutions.

again, what part of the Tea party platform do you take issue with?

[rockfist]

I am "far right" on issues of spending, but being for small government and being a Republican is almost incompatible. The corporatist interest in the Republican party is NOT interested in small government. They are just interested in government spending that benefits their corporations.

[jimboston]

How does this study define taxes?

Do fees I pay to the Gov't count?
Like the fee for my dog license or drivers license... or the fees on my phone and cable bills that are labeled "fee" but are really taxes.

Do fines count? They are income for the Gov't... why not?

What about "services" I pay for now that used to be included in my taxes?
Like trash collection, now we pay "bag fee's" or sometimes we just pay the independent company directly.

Does this in any way factor in the fact that my health insurance has gone up... primarily due to the fact that hospitals can't charge a large percentage of the population for 'emergency care'... so they are forced to offset that loss by charging more to people who can afford to pay?

Oh... and then after you don't factor in all this stuff... I still wind up paying at least 50% or more in taxes.

Looks like I'm getting screwed.

Must be because I am "ultra rich".

Doesn't feel that way when both my wife and myself go to work everyday and are out of the house 11-12 hours each with the commute.