Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

AspenValley wrote:

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Punish the rich.

There it is again....punish the rich. why is that so wrong and punish seniors, punish the middle class, punish the sick, punish college students is OK?

It's a talking point.

They've got these people repeating it back like robots.

Exactly how are we punishing seniors, the middle class, the sick and college students again? How are Republicans punishing these groups?

conifermtman wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Punish the rich.

There it is again....punish the rich. why is that so wrong and punish seniors, punish the middle class, punish the sick, punish college students is OK?

It's a talking point.

They've got these people repeating it back like robots.

Exactly how are we punishing seniors, the middle class, the sick and college students again? How are Republicans punishing these groups?

We're not. It is just another scare tactic, staight from their talking points book. Page 152 I think?

conifermtman wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The article is simply assumptions and suppositions, with no facts showing where anyone other than the author and the conservative echos here is pushing for a 70% marginal tax rate.

More proof that many liberals suck at math.

LOL

Yep - I suck at math. I just have a BS in math and four patents doing statistics, but I suck at it.

Jeez. "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."

Yawn. Liberals take your guns (I am liberal and well armed) - start that one too, will you?

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: tea partiers are being used by the rich... how foolish they are to take the bait. their honorable mission has been turned into a ploy for the rich. tea partiers, please WAKE UP and get back on track with what you started out doing. Please don't be a mouth piece for people that could not care any less about you, you are nothing but a little peon and pawn to be used by them, in their eyes. Wake Up!

You will never convince them, BTW - Viking and ConiferMtnMan think they are part of that elite group. I bet I make more than both of them, and I figured it out.

I love you, Viking, but you are DUMB about this. You are not rich any more than I am. The red party is killing the middle class. ConiferMtnMan would never get it, so why bother? It take me into winter to pay off SS. I pay 20K in federal ALONE. Why is having the ultra rich pay some of mine so bad? Heck - I am just a working stiff.

conifermtman wrote: Who is paying for all those programs we can't afford. It certainly is not the poor.

IMO - the problem is that it is certainly not the rich either.

WAKE UP.

The rich DON'T pay and the poor can't.

Now whom do you think can most afford it???

Martin Ent Inc wrote: You have NO idea how they function, and a new tax or a new reg will not effect them at all.
I keep telling you they can/will find a new deduction, loophole, other to withstand any counter % to your profit. (lawyers are good at reading law)

There is truth in this and it is part of what is beginning to fuel a murderous rage in some quarters towards the rich. At some point, there are going to be people who are going to take matters into their own hands. I pray we don't ever get to that point, because it would be horrible and bloody and chaotic, but don't bother trying to tell me it can't happen, that their money and lawyers will save them. Money and lawyers didn't keep the royalty and nobility of France from losing their heads when the poor and especially the middle class got tired of them being above the law. It was in fact their habitual arrogance in believing they would ALWAYS be above the law that made them so easy as a class to topple and destroy.

However, unlike you, I recognize that there are means short of violence that could take away all their little legal loopholes and perogatives, but it will not happen because there are too many of their lapdogs in Congress and elsewhere making sure it doesn't.

conifermtman wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

archer wrote:

conifermtman wrote: Punish the rich.

There it is again....punish the rich. why is that so wrong and punish seniors, punish the middle class, punish the sick, punish college students is OK?

It's a talking point.

They've got these people repeating it back like robots.

Exactly how are we punishing seniors, the middle class, the sick and college students again? How are Republicans punishing these groups?

Has anyone here actually posted where the Republicans plan to make all their cuts????? Is everyone just afraid to put those ideas out there? or is it just rhetoric from the right that they want to slash spending?

Do any of you think that the Republacans want to cut SS? or medicare? or medicaid? or unemployment benefits? which segments of society will those cuts punish?

Perhaps this is why the conservatives here have no answer to what spending cuts the GOP would make.

Cut, Cap And Balance Act: Tea Party Debt Ceiling Plan Faces House Vote

The measure doesn't contain any actual spending cuts but promises they will be made in the future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 02343.html

How can you put out a bill promising to cut spending in the future if you have no ideas how to do that?

posturing is all this is. The GOP wastes their time, and everyone elses time, putting together bills with no substance, instead of working on a bill with Democrats that would detail how they would cut, cap and balance.

archer wrote: Perhaps this is why the conservatives here have no answer to what spending cuts the GOP would make.

Cut, Cap And Balance Act: Tea Party Debt Ceiling Plan Faces House Vote

The measure doesn't contain any actual spending cuts but promises they will be made in the future.

How can you put out a bill promising to cut spending in the future if you have no ideas how to do that?

posturing is all this is. The GOP wastes their time, and everyone elses time, putting together bills with no substance, instead of working on a bill with Democrats that would detail how they would cut, cap and balance.

Again, you need to read and keep up. They are voting on the ONLY bill presented on Friday! They HAVE the details. And the bill HAS a lot of substance and makes sense to those who aren't stuck on 'RAISE TAXES'! Obama is the one who keeps giving vague cut referrences. The Dems won't detail ANYTHING in these debt discusisons! No matter how much you like to say it, it won't make it true.

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: Perhaps this is why the conservatives here have no answer to what spending cuts the GOP would make.

Cut, Cap And Balance Act: Tea Party Debt Ceiling Plan Faces House Vote

The measure doesn't contain any actual spending cuts but promises they will be made in the future.

How can you put out a bill promising to cut spending in the future if you have no ideas how to do that?

posturing is all this is. The GOP wastes their time, and everyone elses time, putting together bills with no substance, instead of working on a bill with Democrats that would detail how they would cut, cap and balance.

Again, you need to read and keep up. They are voting on the ONLY bill presented on Friday! They HAVE the details. And the bill HAS a lot of substance and makes sense to those who aren't stuck on 'RAISE TAXES'! Obama is the one who keeps giving vague cut referrences. The Dems won't detail ANYTHING in these debt discusisons! No matter how much you like to say it, it won't make it true.

They have the details? well please enumerate them....I have seen no details on what they plan to cut so I would be very interested in seeing them. What is detailed in this bill? You can't say they have them if you can't list them....

archer wrote: How can you put out a bill promising to cut spending in the future if you have no ideas how to do that?

posturing is all this is. The GOP wastes their time, and everyone elses time, putting together bills with no substance, instead of working on a bill with Democrats that would detail how they would cut, cap and balance.

We finally get some truth. Cut, Cap and Balance provides for the spending already appropriated by Congress and the executive, requires that future budgets have smaller deficits than previous ones and that the citizens of the states have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that requires the wannabe national government to operate under the same restrictions as they have imposed upon their own state governments.

The wannabe national government has proven itself incapable of restraining itself, as $14 Trillion in current debt and $100+ Trillion in future unfunded liabilities clearly shows. Either Congress can propose the amendment or the states can call a convention themselves to propose it. The last time, late 1970's into the early 1980's, 32 states signed just such a call - 2 short of the 34 necessary. As things stand today 29 states, 5 short of the number necessary, have a standing call for a constitutional convention on the matter as 3 of the states rescinded their earlier call for a convention, though it is possible that under a court challenge the rescissions may themselves be rescinded making is necessary for only an additional 2 states to sign onto the call.

Congress proposed Amendment 17 to prevent the states from calling a convention on their own (all that was needed was one more state and Congress would have been required to call the convention). I am quite certain that unless Congress proposes an amendment themselves there will be a renewed push from the states which removes the choice from their hands. All that would be necessary is for 25% (perhaps as few as 10%) of the states that do not have a standing call for the convention to pass such a call in either their legislatures, which are bound by their state constitutions to have a balanced budget for the state (with the exception of VT IIRC), or by citizen ballot initiative.

Does it make more sense for Congress to write and propose their own amendment or for a constitutional convention to write it for them? Passing a proposed amendment in Congress is no guarantee that 75% of the states will ratify the amendment and it is actually quite likely that they would fail to do so given that there are thousands of proposed amendments, 33 of which made it to the point of a vote being made on ratification and only 17 that have been ratified after the initial 10 were adopted.

If Congress writes the proposal, at least they would have the opportunity to make it so distasteful that it would not be ratified, no such guarantees exist if the states call a convention and write the amendment for the wannabe national government. Just some food for thought.........