I don't think he said a word about taxing the poor. He simply pointed out that there are many that don't pay taxes. He did, however, mention removing tax loopholes for business that could result in as much $1 trillion in increased revenues.

Posted by: superdave10

August 24, 2011 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Actually, it's progress that he even says "taxes". Republicans in Congress have tried in vain to convince the average American that we are somehow to blame for the national deficit and that if we just give more breaks to Big Oil, the Super-Rich, and the military, jobs will not be lost. And Democrats have been a bunch of scared little wabbits afraid to openly challenge this nonsense...why? Not sure; more will be revealed.

But, the People have begun to wake up. The Warren Buffet op-ed did a lot to allow us common folk to say out loud that the Republican "save the rich" campaign is a naked emperor that only the Republican intimidation machine thinks is clothed.

There are challenges regarding Social Security and Medicare that we need to address, yes. But cutting the benefits of those who are currently drawing is NOT the answer to our deficit. The military budget is ripe for reduction; even the military admits they have a lot of fat and that their budget could be cut by as much as $1 trillion and we'd still have the strongest military in the world.

Email your represesntataives and let them know that you see through this charade. They need to hear from everyone. It takes a little effort but it's not that hard to do. Tell them what you think about how they plan to balance this budget, and that taking from the average American is not the solution.

I have challenged all 3 of my representatives to step up to the plate regarding the "shared sacrifice" they say we must all make, and have challenged them to cut their own salaries by 15%; give up their own medical benefits that the taxpayers provide for them and purchase their own, like they want the rest of us to do; and to give up their taxpayer funded pension plans so that they, too, can have only their own savings and Social Security for retirment benefits. They should be able to do quite well without it, because most of *them* are wealthy. I read some stats on the wealthiest congresspersons a few days ago. The top 50 range from about $256 million in assets at the most, to a low of $6 million. And our congress is supposed to by "By the People, for the People." Hmmmmm. Sounds like it's by the Rich People, for the Rich People, to me. And it's time every Average Joe called them out on this, regardless of party affiliation, because if WE don't get past party politics, the old "divide and conquer" strategy will continue to be effective, and the poor and middle class will pay for their free ride--THEIR "entitlements."

Posted by: SPA

August 24, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ImUnarmed--

Actually, we have a media sector that does that very thing. Unfortunately, it's primarily online. And of course conservatives dismiss it as even more liberal than the mainstream liberalmedia. The more facts exposed, the more liberal it is. It's easy to ignore the truth if you are satisfied with impugning the source without reading the information. You can find ample proof of this in these threads. Even information from the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute is dismissed out-of-hand if it is cited by way of MediaMatters or PolitiFact.

Stupid is bad enough. Deliberate stupid is even worse.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 24, 2011 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ImUnarmed--

Interestingly enough, I just saw an article about the fine job our media are doing-- in an old copy of ПРАВДА. But seriously: It's true that the limitations of Internet access keep such outlets from being a true mass medium.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 24, 2011 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ImUnarmed--

Interestingly enough, I just saw an article about the fine job our media are doing-- in an old copy of ПРАВДА. But seriously: It's true that the limitations of Internet access help to keep such outlets from being a true mass medium. On the other hand, the proliferation of cable channels, the decline of newspapers and the vapidization of commercial radio make the mass media less massive than in the past. Perhaps they'll all meet in the middle.

Liberals will always be at a disadvantage in the media wars, because they are less ovine than conservatives.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 24, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

So you 'Cat's' believe it is perfectly ok for 50% of potential taxpaying Americans to pay no Federal Income Tax, and yet reap the benefits of this country? So, in your eyes, we need a truly socialist society where we take 'from those with ability to those with need'? That, by the way, is a Karl Marx quote.....

Let's face the facts. This is all about power and control. If 50% of the potential taxpaying public either pays no FEDERAL INCOME TAX, or better yet receives a net welfare benefit from our taxation system in the form of EITC ($58 BILLION last year), then they keep voting democrat. They have 'no dog in the fight' and really don't care what happens with taxation/economic growth/leadership/etc......Can you not see the light. Keep the dogs at bay and you run the show....Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are proud of you characters! Keep those democratic votes coming!

What is really missing in this blog is the turn-coat nature of Pryor's remarks. He voted lock-step to increase spending over the last four years in a democratically controlled congress and (for two of those years the white house). That group increased our debt by $4 TRILLION in the last two years. Yes, $4 TRILLION in just 2 short years.

I was not and am not a Bush fan, but the libs on this blog will undoubtably want to point to the Bush years....in 8 years of the Bush Presidency, the deficit increased by $4 TRILLION. The last two years with a democratically controlled congress. So Obama and the dems have increased the deficit at a pace that is 4 TIMES the rate of the Bush years. And now all of the sudden Pryor has seen the light? What a bogus bunch of BS. He is trying to save his a** for the next election. He sees the mood of Arkansans changing and is trying to catch up.....the true story here is that Pryor is part of the problem, not part of the solution.....He really needs a new job and we should help him find one.....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 24, 2011 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: You cannot argue your point with projected numbers from some bogus source at the 'point Obama took office'. We have been over this before. Look at the actual numbers. I know libs love to live in the projected and assumed world, but we conservatives prefer facts for our arguments. I can show you tons of 'projections' from the time Obama took office that tell many different tales. We are not interested in psychic predictions here. The numbers speak for themselves. If they don't, then refute it here (actual numbers, not PROJECTIONS). Care to throw in some projections about the next 1.5 Obama years? How about the inheritance issue. If Obama 'inherited' 2.5 years of BS from Bush, then Bush 'inherited' 2.5 years of BS from Clinton? When will you grow up and take responsibility for your party? After all, Obama had 2 years of Carte Blanche with a democratically controlled congress.....And yet he still didn't get it done....

Nice skip over the $4 trillion deficit increase under Obama. No explanation there. I am certainly not surprised. Libs are convenient like that. Don't have an answer...let's throw projections and legacies at them....You carry the torch well....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 24, 2011 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat: "While we're on this misconception of yours, explain how the poor reap the same benefits from society as the wealthy".

Here is your laundry list of the 'same benefits' (poor specific to follow): National defense (military), homeland security, dept of education (as poor as it is), dept of agriculture (ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies to decrease food costs), social security, medicare, EPA, OSHA, ICE, ATF, Minerals Management, FBI, National Parks, Unemployment, Job Training, NTSB, Federal Interstate system, Federal Marshals, etc, etc......

Now for the 'poor specific' (obviously in addition to the benefits listed above for all American Citizens): Welfare, food stamps, federal housing assistance, WIC, EITC, Energy Assistance, Medicaid, Tax Preparation Assistance, Internet service, cell phone service, School breakfast and lunch programs, Headstart, etc, etc....

Did you seriously ask that question?

Alpha quoting COM: "RE "I was not and am not a Bush fan, but the libs on this blog will undoubtably want to point to the Bush years...."
Wow-- you got one right. How unusual. And one would rightly point to the cause for spending if one were going to offer a legitimate criticism of it."

No prob. Now, does the Bush legacy get to lay-off the first 2.5 years to Clinton? If inheritance is the rule here, then that only seems fair....

Alpha Cat: "It is the size of the deficit, not the pace at which it accrued, that is the "problem". Remember: the pace of spending is tied to Bush's unfunded wars and trying to recover from his recession."

So all of those promises Obama gave about the Stimulus and how it was going to save us are swept under the rug? He did, after all, have a majority in both houses for 2 years which would yield to his every whim (as we clearly witnessed)...And yet here we are. At what point does a President accept responsibility? Bush was faced with a liberal congress his last two years. They have no blame in this game? Pretty convenient don't you think? At least the congress approved of the wars Bush took on.....Where is the approval for Obama's war? Americans are dying and he has yet to ask for permission.....Better question is where is congresses' challenge to his authority.....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 24, 2011 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Here is your laundry list of the 'same benefits' (poor specific to follow): National defense (military),..."
Yes, the poor have so much to defend, yet they provide most of our cannon fodder. The ones with children support the public schools through property taxes; many of the poor have no children. Energy assistance and tax preparation are available regardless of income.

RE "Now for the 'poor specific' (obviously in addition to the benefits listed above for all American Citizens): Welfare, food stamps,..."
Not all poor people get all of these benefits-- certainly not the middle-income taxpayers who are among those who don't pay federal income tax, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

I have shown elsewhere how the wealthy benefit from infrastructure and other amenities far more than the poor-- well beyond the income difference. But there are other bits of society that benefit the wealthy out of all proportion. The poor do the grunt work that makes wealth possible, but they don't get rich doing it. The tax code has advantages that increase with wealth, which the poor have no access to. The wealthy get more direct representation in our government. The wealthy don't have to be sneered at, insulted and denigrated by people like you. There are some things that a few thousand dollars just can't make up for.

RE "does the Bush legacy get to lay-off the first 2.5 years to Clinton?"
Only if he maintained the budget surplus and other elements of the Clinton legacy. In other words, no.

RE "He did, after all, have a majority in both houses for 2 years which would yield to his every whim (as we clearly witnessed)."
That majority was not particularly effective, as it was not able to overcome the obstruction of the Republicans in either venue. Remember the filibuster threats? Remember how the Republicans screwed up health-care reform? We've covered this before.

RE "Bush was faced with a liberal congress his last two years. They have no blame in this game?"
Of course the Congress, in all its panoramic glory, is culpable. While I am perfectly happy to show how Republicans screwed things up, I have never said that liberal representatives are blameless. But the President creates the budget, and according to conservatives, always tells Congress what to do. Bush, having inherited a surplus, produced a huge deficit and presided over a recession. Obama is still working to fix it.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 25, 2011 at 1:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Shoot, posted in the wrong thread.

Posted by: ImUnarmed

August 25, 2011 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Armed...so you are calling me a liar. What BS! Federal Income tax, as i have stated many times on this blog, is the source of nearly 50% of our federal revenue. So we have 50% of federal revenue coming from only 1/2 of the population. Get a grip man! There are other taxes no doubt, but we are talking the major contributor to our US funding. And 50% of our population is not contributing, yet they are reaping the benefits of being a US citizen none-the-less. On a previous blog you talk about 'fairness'. Tell me how it is 'fair ' that 50% of your neighbors pay no federal income tax, and 20% of those actually have a net benefit from the taxation system via the welfare EITC program? Not only do many not pay, they get a welfare check through this system. And that is 'fair'. Check your socialist propaganda at the door......

Posted by: commonsense96

August 25, 2011 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Federal Income tax, as i have stated many times on this blog, is the source of nearly 50% of our federal revenue"
Well, if 40% (2010) is "nearly 50%".

RE "...we are talking the major contributor to our US funding."
Major, all right-- 41.6% of revenue, compared to 40% for payroll taxes (2010). Very major. A tad more major than payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are pretty major, too.

RE "Property taxes are paid by everyone who owns property, regardless of whether they have children or not...."
Quite true. My point being that the deadbeats who offend you even more by daring to breed, and who therefore use the public schools, support them. You did allude to education. Property taxes, by the way, are also paid (indirectly) by people who rent property. You really should do your homework.

RE "Don't we have a democratic society with one vote for each person?"
Voting is only part of the job. We don't each have a lobbyist, or the funding, to wield our influence in government.

RE "And Obama was elected. So the wealthy get more representation in Government?"
Obama is the executive. It is legislation that works against the poor, either by ignoring them or patronizing them.

RE "Really? You can't be serious about this claim."
Yes, I can. The health-care reform bill was negotiated in five bipartisan committees, and the Republican members of those committees made a real camel of it. The committees that negotiated the stimulus were bipartisan. The fact that Republicans didn't support either bill in the vote is irrelevant, they managed to screw things up anyway. And you surely must remember the filibuster threats.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 26, 2011 at 1:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I posted these bits similarly in the "Blame Taxes for Stasis" thread:

>>>>>>>
2008 -- Individual income tax, 45% ($1,125B); payroll tax, 36% ($900B); corporate income tax 12% ($300B) [total revenue, $2.5 trillion]
2010 -- Individual income tax, 41.6% ($898.5B); payroll tax, 40% ($864.8B); corporate income tax 8.9% ($191.4B)
Now, from that information, we see that between 2008 and 2010:
individual income tax dropped 7.6% as a revenue source, or 20.1% in dollars;
corporate income taxes dropped 25.83% as a source, or 36.2% in dollars;
payroll tax went up 11% as a source, and dropped 3.9% in dollars.

In other words, payroll taxes not only failed to drop in dollars as fast as individual (2 times as great a drop) or corporate (over 6 times) income taxes in this period, they actually went up as a revenue source. This shifted the revenue burden to the bottom 50% of taxpayers, as every one of them pays payroll taxes on their entire incomes, while incomes above $106,800 are not assessed payroll tax.

>>>>>>>
If you really want to make a point based on one of many taxes, here's one that's just as important as the point that about half of Americans/taxpayers/constituents pay no federal income tax:

In 2008, the top 10% of taxpayers, with 45.77% of total AGI and a cutoff income of $113,799, paid NO payroll tax on that excess booty. Since the cutoff income is higher than the limit on income subject to payroll taxes, more than 10% of taxpayers are not carrying their weight, and letting almost 90% of taxpayers pay for the outrageous benefits they receive from the system.

I hope to see you up in arms over this gross inequity.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 26, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat: "RE "And Obama was elected. So the wealthy get more representation in Government?"
Obama is the executive. It is legislation that works against the poor, either by ignoring them or patronizing them."

So now you are seeing the light! Great progress. The last four years of presidency (2 Bush, 2 Obama) had democratically controlled congresses. In fact, 21 of the past 33 congresses have had a majority rule of democrats in both houses. That is 64% of the time that democrats controlled both houses of congress. Republicans controlled 6 of those 33 congresses. That is a mere 18%. The rest were split congresses. So, looks like the democrats own this problem as i have been preaching. Thanks for the plug, and totally agree that the president is an 'executive'. Appreciate the support of my argument!

Posted by: commonsense96

August 26, 2011 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

.
Why Pryor is not fit to be Senator, in addition to his having admitting that he doesn't have a high IQ:
.
>>Pryor said Benton County has received $275 million in federal funding in recent years for projects such as interstate and airport construction. Federal money for such projects could be more scarce in future years<<
.
Senator, highway funding comes from the Highway(Transportation) Trust Fund. That Fund is supplied by fuel taxes, paid at the pump and wholesale levels.
.

Posted by: cdawg

August 27, 2011 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat _ Here is an additional comment on your proposal that "The President sets the budget, and Congress usually acquiesces."

Congress has been majority held by democrats for over 60% of the last 45 years. Republicans have had a majority in congress of around 17%. The balance has been split between the two parties. So...If congress 'usually acquiesces', then it is the democrats who have no spine. Especially over the last 4 years. They had enough backbone to pass the stimulus, Obama care, etc.....

If the democrats had some spine, in conjunction with doing what is right for the American People, then we wouldn't be in this mess. If they were so against the wars of the Bush era, then why did they vote for and fund them? We have an Obama war going on right now that congress has neither endorsed or funded.....

It is still clear that democrats own this problem (see your Barney Frank on the fight to not reform Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac). And yet liberals continue to stick their heads in the sand and blame 'Bush'. The last two years of the Bush presidency had a democratically controlled congress. If they hated the wars so bad, why did they fund them? The purse strings were theirs, not Bush's............

Posted by: commonsense96

August 27, 2011 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

As promised, I took the time tonight to put together a very thorough refutation of this "50% don't pay [whatever] tax" canard.

With eight charts and 1,800 words it is quite long as it is so I didn't get into addressing some of "COM's" objections as I had wished (all of which have been addressed here multiple times and I really don't consider very serious). If he wishes to post his objections there, I will gladly address each one.

Posted here:

"Refuting the "50% don't pay taxes" Canard"

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 28, 2011 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )