The Tea Party Movement

[TheMulletMutilator]

This is a chart of the percentage share of the national income that the top 1% receives over the last 100 years.

As you can see, income inequality is presently the highest it's been since the late 1920s.

Clearly those people are really hurting and need their tax cuts made permanent.

Have you ever seen a poor person hire a workforce and pay them? You may not like the idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy but truthfully, who creates the jobs in this country? Also what percentage of total tax revenue does that top 1% pay? How about the top 5%? Redistribution of wealth is a nice concept until it makes everyone poor.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Love this guy. Throw Paul Ryan on his ticket as the VP and he's got my vote.

He tells it like it is. People don't necessarily like him for it but it's better to know the problems you are dealing with rather than being asleep. Let's face it, the GOP during Bush's term was a disaster. Way too many RINOs including the so-called Conservative George W Bush. We have 2 of the worst Presidents in a row thus far. As for Paul Ryan, I really love his ideas and think he should be on the ticket. He is an economics guru and for that many people fear the cuts he has in mind to at least get us going towards the right path. Kind of like Ron and Rand Paul.

 

[Scat]

There was a time when Unions were necessary. Now they are just ridiculous and out of control. rather than giving up something for all members to keep their job they fight tooth and nail and see reductions in the work force because of it. Perfect example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

I love Governor Christie. A no ********, do whatever it takes, and do it the right way kind of person. A person that is not afraid to stand up to others and willing to make the hard choice. The funny part is that most people won't handle things the way Christies does because they would be too afarid of getting the boot out of office when in reality I see Christie, barring a major scandal, being put back into office for as long as he continues to run for the position. He might be abrassive, you may not like his style, you may not agree with all of his choices but he does what he says, gets results and you know where he's coming from.

 

[sirkickyass]

He is an economics guru

WHAT?!!! You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

and for that many people fear the cuts he has in mind to at least get us going towards the right path.

Do you seriously do any research at all?

Here's another non-partisan analysis. Paul Ryan's plan cuts taxes for the wealthy, and gives little to no relief to middle and low income earners, in some cases even raising their taxes. In exchange he slashes revenue so fiercely that even his spending reductions don't balance the budget because he's not cutting more than $500 billion/yr from the budget.

https://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/9/4475274.html

In sum, Ryan's plans by my reading would reduce federal revenues by $5 trillion over ten years and his spending cuts, according to his CBO cost analysis, cut less than $4 trillion over the same time period.

For deficit hawks that's headed in the wrong direction.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Actually, your statement was:



You have yet to cite a single piece of evidence for the proposition that a) the budget was not balanced and/or b) that accounting trickery was used to make it appear balanced.

You linked to an article that stated the budget was balanced (contrary to your position), made no mention of accounting principles (providing no support for your position), and merely argued about who should get credit for it.

https://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

He is playing the race card, homophobia card, and islamaphobia card. They all do.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

WHAT?!!! You've got to be ****ing kidding me.



Do you seriously do any research at all?

Here's another non-partisan analysis. Paul Ryan's plan cuts taxes for the wealthy, and gives little to no relief to middle and low income earners, in some cases even raising their taxes. In exchange he slashes revenue so fiercely that even his spending reductions don't balance the budget because he's not cutting more than $500 billion/yr from the budget.

https://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/9/4475274.html

In sum, Ryan's plans by my reading would reduce federal revenues by $5 trillion over ten years and his spending cuts, according to his CBO cost analysis, cut less than $4 trillion over the same time period.

For deficit hawks that's headed in the wrong direction.

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9454

Looks like I can find partisan articles as well. Take a read if you like.

 

[sirkickyass]

Have you ever seen a poor person hire a workforce and pay them? You may not like the idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy but truthfully, who creates the jobs in this country? Also what percentage of total tax revenue does that top 1% pay? How about the top 5%? Redistribution of wealth is a nice concept until it makes everyone poor.

Full disclosure here: I'm in the top 5%. If the Madame and I were to get married we would pay the top tax bracket that will likely have taxes raised. I still support it.

Who creates jobs? Everyone. Demand is a necessary component in the creation of the demand for labor. If no one can afford ipods, Apple doesn't exist and there are no jobs for Apple employees.

Where your reasoning really breaks down is in the marginal analysis. The consensus of economic studies presently is that the wealthy tend to save tax gains rather than spending them, meaning that your position that less taxes on the wealthy is creating jobs is simply false. However, tax breaks on the middle and lower classes tend to get spent in the larger economy. In effect, you get a bigger bang for your tax break because the tax break is consumed by lower classes and not utilized by the wealthiest 1%.

In sum, your supply argument is empirically denied. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, however, empirically stimulate demand. And greater demand means more jobs.

In terms of fundamental fairness, and this is why I gave you full disclosure earlier, I fully recognize that my success is the product of a fair number of social and economic factors completely beyond my control. For the most part, so is everyone else's in the top 1%. In particular without some specific government programs I wouldn't be in nearly as good of a position. I reaped the rewards, I can afford to pay it forward.

 

[sirkickyass]

https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9454

Looks like I can find partisan articles as well. Take a read if you like.

Actually, my article was non-partisan. For example, the TPC also defended Paul Ryan from some unfair claims that he was purposely misleading people with CBO estimates by not including revenue impacts. In essence, they've fairly concluded that he's not a liar, his policy proposals are just overly optimistic.

Ryan, for his part, has acknowledged that the TPC was adding to the discussion and their analysis was not unfair; including adjusting the plan to hit more accurate revenue targets.

https://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/10/4476605.html

To date, however, he has not actually introduced changes to the roadmap to hit those revenue levels.

Your article makes no responsive claim to the idea of the net effect. As a result, it says nothing about the actual effect of the policy on the national debt.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Full disclosure here: I'm in the top 5%. If the Madame and I were to get married we would pay the top tax bracket that will likely have taxes raised. I still support it.

Who creates jobs? Everyone. Demand is a necessary component in the creation of the demand for labor. If no one can afford ipods, Apple doesn't exist and there are no jobs for Apple employees.

Where your reasoning really breaks down is in the marginal analysis. The consensus of economic studies presently is that the wealthy tend to save tax gains rather than spending them, meaning that your position that less taxes on the wealthy is creating jobs is simply false. However, tax breaks on the middle and lower classes tend to get spent in the larger economy. In effect, you get a bigger bang for your tax break because the tax break is consumed by lower classes and not utilized by the wealthiest 1%.

In sum, your supply argument is empirically denied. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes, however, empirically stimulate demand. And greater demand means more jobs.

In terms of fundamental fairness, and this is why I gave you full disclosure earlier, I fully recognize that my success is the product of a fair number of social and economic factors completely beyond my control. For the most part, so is everyone else's in the top 1%. In particular without some specific government programs I wouldn't be in nearly as good of a position. I reaped the rewards, I can afford to pay it forward.

And in the same sentence, there would be no Apple if there wasn't a kid with the idea who had financial backing by lending and or some rich investors. So that is where your argument falls short. What happens when you raise taxes on the rich especially rich companies? They move more and more of their jobs over sea. Why? Because we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world at 35%. A perfect example is current moves Maytag, Whirlpool, and Polaris. Where is Ford's biggest plant currently? China. I would like some accurate figures showing the rich just pocketing all of their tax savings or returns. You won't find an actual reliable source that will show this to be the case. Here is the argument I think sums up my opinions on the matter. Why can't everyone's taxes stay the same as they are now and we actually reduce spending? You can't tell me we should be spending 800K(small number when compared to the total stimulus) to teach Africans how to wash their junk. You also can't tell me that we should be paying to study catfish DNA at this point. The majority of people are cutting back on everything. Too bad the Federal Government can't do the same.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Actually, my article was non-partisan. For example, the TPC also defended Paul Ryan from some unfair claims that he was purposely misleading people with CBO estimates by not including revenue impacts. In essence, they've fairly concluded that he's not a liar, his policy proposals are just overly optimistic.

Ryan, for his part, has acknowledged that the TPC was adding to the discussion and their analysis was not unfair; including adjusting the plan to hit more accurate revenue targets.

https://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/10/4476605.html

To date, however, he has not actually introduced changes to the roadmap to hit those revenue levels.

Your article makes no responsive claim to the idea of the net effect. As a result, it says nothing about the actual effect of the policy on the national debt.

I kind of agree with Ron Paul on this issue. Which is to close down foreign bases and take a stance of isolationism. You would more than start to draw down the National Debt. We have 80+ military bases over the world? It is time to stop being the world police worry about our own situations. This is also in regards to Israel. We can't even secure our own boarders and yet we are trying to do so in other countries(North & South Korea). This may not be of popular opinion.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

Actually, my article was non-partisan. For example, the TPC also defended Paul Ryan from some unfair claims that he was purposely misleading people with CBO estimates by not including revenue impacts. In essence, they've fairly concluded that he's not a liar, his policy proposals are just overly optimistic.

Ryan, for his part, has acknowledged that the TPC was adding to the discussion and their analysis was not unfair; including adjusting the plan to hit more accurate revenue targets.

https://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/10/4476605.html

To date, however, he has not actually introduced changes to the roadmap to hit those revenue levels.

Your article makes no responsive claim to the idea of the net effect. As a result, it says nothing about the actual effect of the policy on the national debt.

As far as you being in the top 5% of earners and willing to pay more. It is great for you and your family. I would however prefer you use that tax savings and come up with a business idea or find someone with a great business idea and invest in his idea. If you don't want to do that then so be it. It is your money.

 

[One Brow]

It is your money.

That's pretty much all it boils to, a big cry of MINE MINE MINE. Evidence carefully chosen to rationalize the idea, theories cherry-picked to justify it.