I agree with mytiny. There are too many people willing to loot the industry and ingenuity of those of us stupid enough to keep producing. The tax rates in this country are too high and that’s because most of the money is taken to redistribute to people unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.
If you can’t refute the premise, use ad hominem tactics.
I don’t carry water for either side, but you prove you’ve already achieved points 1 and 3 on your to do list. And that’s just how easy it is.
“I mean it goes so far you all want those who illegally come in to our country LEGAL so you’ll have more voters. ”
Sorry Cupcake, the last people who tried to give illegals amnesty were Bush and McCain.
“You all give Obama a spending pass, when Bush did it you ripped him apart.”
You clamor about the spending on the health care bill and then defend the tax cuts costing 2x more which benefit a far smaller portion of the population.
“Mayor Daley can suggest ramming a rifle w/ bayonet up someones rear then firing it and you are not demanding him to step down.”
Yay guns.
“You all sicken me, this is why I stopped posting here for so long.”
Welcome back.
“Then you want those who do not have money to live off of those who do. What is this called? ”
‘You making up stuff’?
But I’ve heard through the grapevine that those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they’re lazy, while those who are rich are rich because they’re hard workers. I admire Bernie Madoff’s “hard work” and that CEOs must work 500x more than their average worker. Good show.
“It really seems you liberals want more government and”
I giggle at this statement as I watch Conservatives try to use government to ban, imprison, or otherwise outlaw gays. Texas, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts (the constant attempts by the Right to repeal their equal rights) for starters.
I also laugh hysterically at history showing that government grew from Clinton to Bush, not the other way around.
(cont)
“This Congress and Administration is only for wealth redistribution to the freeloaders (that vote for Democrats).”
As opposed to last Congress’ and Administration’s redistribution of wealth to the upper class free-loaders who vote Republican. Middle class wages have stagnated in the past 10 years. All of that wealth has been usurped by the wealthy and often taken out of the country.
You said:
“Sorry Cupcake, the last people who tried to give illegals amnesty were Bush and McCain.”
I know Bush tried to make illegals legal. No clue why, but keep in mind this was also when I feel Bush was becoming more of a democrat AND the congress WAS democrats.
You said:
“You clamor about the spending on the health care bill and then defend the tax cuts costing 2x more which benefit a far smaller portion of the population.”
?????
You said:
“But I’ve heard through the grapevine that those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they’re lazy, while those who are rich are rich because they’re hard workers. I admire Bernie Madoff’s “hard work” and that CEOs must work 500x more than their average worker. Good show.”
Those who are unemployed are likely hard works. Those who are not employed or never been (seriously) employed are the lazy piles I refer to. Please do not under mind my intelligence and act as if they do not exist. Also I NEVER stayed those who are rich are hard working, but it is THEIR money, not yours. Right?
You said:
” I giggle at this statement as I watch Conservatives try to use government to ban, imprison, or otherwise outlaw gays. Texas, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts (the constant attempts by the Right to repeal their equal rights) for starters.”
Once again, if the gay agenda was not being force fed it would not be a huge problem that it is.
You said:
“I also laugh hysterically at history showing that government grew from Clinton to Bush, not the other way around.”
WHAT?!?!?! Please show, and make it creditable information. All I see is just the opposite, till the last year, Bush did start pushing a larger government (bail outs), but again, partly due to more democrats in house and senate.
BTW The wealthy vote Republican, not because of “Congress’ and Administration’s redistribution of wealth to the upper class free-loaders”, but because they have enough brains to realize that the democrats want to take their money, unless you vote for them, then you can lie and cheat the IRS, just ask most of Obama’s flunky’s.
I don’t feel I’ll be around long, too many brainless here. I do not think you are one of them, you do have intelligence, I just feel you are misinformed a lot of time.
We’ll just have to see…
With one of the lowest overall tax rates in the industrialized world, especially for the wealthy, and reductions in rates under Obama for the “middle class” for a change, well, consider the source.
With concern for those over-taxed corporations, folks might review when the REPUBLICAN led Congress in 2001 AGAIN REDUCED royalties paid by oil companies on deep water wells in the Gulf of Mexico. OIL is one of the most subsidized operations going, and they still stick it to us at the pump!! Welcome to the Bush Energy Policy!
Just in case you think I’m B.Sing about Exxon and GE
The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
You are blinded by “big oil” hatred. Last I heard big oil makes less per gallon the the government and less then MOST states.
To me it looks like big oil is actually the government. All other profits goes to the crude oil which is….
OPEC, not big oil.
Jade
I am glad you can accept that we both have our own bias. I agree with this.
Also, about GE. I think the company stinks anyway, this year alone my 2 1/2 year old microwave and 2 1/2 year old washer stopped working. Neither were over used.
BTW I do not like any US based corporation doing business over seas. Takes the profits from the US and you get to play the tax game as GE does. I do not agree with this.
So this goes to prove further that Obama’s ridiculous tax increases affect small US based business, like the one I am currently employed at. Which is a fact to say, this can very well destroy the struggling small business in this country.
“So this goes to prove further that Obama’s ridiculous tax increases affect small US based business, like the one I am currently employed at. Which is a fact to say, this can very well destroy the struggling small business in this country.”
Businesses didn’t start pouring overseas January of 2009… . And … “what increases?”
I studied the cartoon and agreed with the cartoonist’s theme that middle America wants some relief from the effects of the Bush tax cuts. I also read the comments, which have ranged from simple name-calling to outright lies, which informs me that a comics forum is not a venue to expect thoughtful discourse about politics.
tinytown, a friend OWNED a small oil company, wells, refinery, and stations- he stated “Owning an oil company is a license to print money”. I happen to have the MMS regulations sitting beside me, and have been reviewing some of the egregious reductions in royalties Cheney handed out to his buddies, yep we really needed to subsidize their operations, right.
That big sunflower for BP, the pantsuit lady who disappeared from our TVs after the spill trying to tell us ” the deeper we drill, the better you like us”– only a totally uninformed moron can really think oil companies make less than the government off a barrel of oil. Folks who think that also ignore all the other products beside gasoline that come from that barrel.
An accurate cartoon of the glass reflecting the Bush tax cuts would show money flowing to CEOs and corporations, out of people’s pockets, and not hardly flowing to the IRS.
I am done being nice and holding back I how I feel about liberals.
Once again the ignorance (stupid on purpose) in this room floors me. I do not see me returning. To WAY to much ignorance. Not dealing with it any more.
You liberal need to study what the Bush tax cut did to middle class and LOWER. Remember I made 30K and was a family of 4 at that time and received an extra 1500 in 2008 and I got the 300 a few year before that. Who did that help?
With Obama the taxes on business will increase insanely, especially with that unconstitutional mess called Cuban healthcare reform (AKA Obamacare). As well someone has to start paying for all the money he borrowed and blindly printed. If you do not see this you are clueless or ignorant (remember ignorant is stupid on purpose).
And for those who think a tax cut on the rich is a bad thing, let me say this. HOW EMPLOYS??????????? THE POOR OR THE RICH????????? So you want your employer to have less money? That is stupid. As well who buys more? The poor or the rich?? Thought so! Most of you want to be rich and are jealous of them so you want their money and the government will give it to you. Isn’t that stealing?
I might check back later today to see what kind of responses I get, but I know they will be ignorant thoughtless responses.
Jade I want to say even though I disagree with you, the above does NOT point toward you. You do have intelligence in your posts, they may get under my skin or I do not agree with you, but I am NOT calling you ignorant. But pretty much every one else.
tinybrain- in actuality, when it comes to products that keep the country running and provide the steady jobs, it is MIDDLE CLASS spending, NOT toys for the rich that runs the real economy. A vacation in Aruba doesn’t do squat for the folks in the daily grind, producing for others in the daily grind.
Dummies must wait until the Dems refuse to extend the Bush tax rates, and wait until the IRS taxes are computed next year……it already has been noted by critics that a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 (certainly not RICH)
will see a $2,000 hike in their annual IRS income tax.
BBC article points out average total tax hit on Americans’ income is 17%. A break for the domicile isn’t that big a deal and seems a fair exemption, but most of our tax code IS exemption-(for “special interests”) that is a large part of what needs to change.
Two kids, tax break, three- double your taxes, four quadruple your taxes- simple fact- more kids= higher cost to “society” so you pay MORE, not LESS!! We don’t run family farms and send the kids to work in the fields any more!
Howie, what I find in reviewing the “TEA Party” folks, and most conservatives, like those deniers of climate change, no knowledge of actual impacts of war, or what it means to actually climb a mountain, have no life experiences to judge from, and are easy targets for lies. Those who HAVE lived, and done something, have a better base for judgement.
The basic theory of good writing is: write what you know- as in have lived. Most “conservatives” have little to write, and only repeat what they hear, and unfortunately, believe.
I notice you put a few marriage provisions in there. In that case, no, not everyone, thanks to DOMA. It looks to me more like couples that have been subsidizing relationship benefits they are specifically denied will be on more equal footing to me. It’s kind of like what you learn in Kindergarden… if you can’t share then it gets taken away from you.
“This is what you people want repealed because it’s been drummed into your heads that the tax cuts were for the wealthy.”
The center didn’t look specifically at the top 3 percent, but it did look at the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent. The top 1 percent took 29.5 percent of the benefits, and the top 5 percent took 44.2 percent.
So if the top 5 percent took less than 50 percent of the benefits, the top 3 percent certainly didn’t reach that 50 percent threshold. A rough estimate that splits the difference would be that the top 3 percent got 37 percent to 39 percent of the benefits.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/14/jim-mcdermott/jim-mcdermott-says-3-percent-got-majority-benefit-/
”^ You act as if all money we earn belongs to the government, and we should be grateful for any they decide we get to keep…”
Not all of it, on.. but a portion of it. This is from the Bible, so I would imagine it would be a Conservative belief.
So here’s the thing, apparently those tax cuts will affect everyone. So what? Cut it. You can’t bellyache about fixing the deficit when we’ve got this huge budget shortfall here and this is one thing that is causing the problem. This is a BIGGER deficit problem than the Healthcare bill… and for all of those people being so adamant about repealing it because “we can’t afford it” we should ALL be adamant about repealing this since we can’t afford it either!
“But that’ll cost you the benefit of filing jointly.” (which yes, I currently have)
I was going to lose that anyway. Oh well. I’ll live.
“Uh Doc, before calculating dedections the tax liablility for 50K is almost 6K, with the tax cut you save about $600. Ok that isn’t much. BUT the gov is working to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction (ouch) and the charitable deduction (another ouch)”
Someone with a 50K income isn’t making the charitable deductions for that to really affect them. They were already in that range, it just brings the gigantic charitable deductions down to receive the same deduction rate as the smaller one [read: equal]. And since they’re charitable donations, they’re solely for charity, which means they wouldn’t withhold money they were going to donate because it was solely out of the kindness of their heart, right? *
“(Note: the site doesn’t say whether or not tax cuts stimulate the economy. For that I refer to HeritageFoundation. You can rely on the Huffington Post and Krugman.)”
They do. But at a 2% rate. Far less than the 50%+ rates of other options. As I mentioned in a post on another comic… if you aren’t poor, you aren’t going to spend your tax cut money, you’re going to save it. The better you are off economically the less inclined you are by spending motivators. When I received my Bush tax rebate it went nowhere but my savings account.
As for trickle down economics… during the Bush years when we had all of these unpaid for tax cuts we didn’t see much in terms of economic growth compared to the Clinton years. Trickle down economics don’t work. The super-rich do not “buy.” We have a spending based economy. Right now the “rich” invest overseas – people overseas will work for less.
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/carolyn-maloney/congresswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/
“At least that liberal writer was honest enough to put in the caveats, which you and she promptly ignore.”
Heritage.org is a Conservative site. Do they list their own caveats?
“Lower tax rates have two specific purposes: (1) to stimulate the economy leading to (2) higher tax revenues.”
Tax cuts have to be paid for. Tax cuts do not magically lead to more revenues. This is a Conservative mantra that requires caveats. For (1) to occur, people have to have a need to spend, AND a need to spend HERE. Some of our largest companies such as Exxon and GE don’t either pay taxes here or they profit FROM their taxes here (GE, 1.1 billion). That’s not government revenue. Many higher-income people have ways to avoid paying taxes or not paying at the rate they should. Warren Buffet, for example, noted that he can pay less percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary who makes a small fraction. Also, it requires that the actions performed by people are all taxable, and that they’re going to perform actions and not just save it to generate more money for themselves. This isn’t universal. Poorer people DO spend what they receive in tax cuts… but most tax cuts don’t go to them (40+% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of earners, leaving the other 50% to be distributed amongst 95% of the population). (2) This relies on point (1), that the money you return to them in tax cuts is immediately spent on economically motivating things, for example if a couple gets a few dollars back in taxes and runs out and buys dinner. Otherwise these are not paid for. $1 in tax cuts typically amounts to $1.02 in economic spending. Not much of a return compared to other programs. It’s the least effective way to generate spending.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/
“PS: As much as I appreciate your domestic problems, we’re discussing tax policy, not the gay agenda. Even people filing as “Single” got a tax cut, so yes, EVERYBODY got a tax cut.”
As much as you like to gripe about taxation it perplexes me how you can’t see that religion-based taxation isn’t an issue. Or is it you simply fight for the tax situations of people you like? If even Google is giving their workers a $1,069 pay increase because of unfair taxation of same-sex couples, that should strike you as a tax issue worthy of consideration. It isn’t merely trickle-down economics that is flawed.
“PPS: Please stop bringing up the bible. I don’t think you believe in it, and I know I don’t. I hate when non-believers use it as some sort of rational to prove their point.”
Actually I was raised Christian and believe in large portions of it. However since so many of our policies, (see my previous paragraph on “PS”) are Biblically based (“people can’t have this because of the Bible”) I find it pertinent to point out the cherry-picking in those statements. Now while you yourself may not believe in it, that’s just fine, but if rule-makers like to cite it when it suits their purposes, I see no reason why not to cite it, especially considering your previous statement of “gay agenda” as if equal rights and treatment as citizens of this country is a special interest… unless there was a “black agenda” back in the Jim Crow days.
“Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases.”
Restrained federal spending works… assuming the private sector isn’t in the tank. Otherwise, as in our situation, restraining federal spending restrains the only source of jobs. Government investment in infrastructure: roads, bridges, all of this stuff needs to be done, and needs government investment.
Minimum regulation… how’d that work out?
“And I don’t know where you got the idea that the rich sit on their money. They put it to work. If taxes are low, the economy is expanding, and they put it to work here. If taxes are high and the economy is stagnant, they put it to work somewhere else. They are rich either way.”
So why is it more jobs were created under Clinton than there were under Bush, even after so many tax cuts were given to these “job creators?” The wage gap between the top 5% and “everyone else” widened by orders of magnitude… . Trickle down doesn’t appear to work… .
I will say one thing I think would actually work is a simpler tax code. One with fewer loopholes.
“But I’m sorry to say that won’t happen because his, your and every lib on this site’s theories on economics don’t work.”
Even though it’s been within the last year or so that our GDP has started to climb out from its contraction? You mentioned that GDP is a component of economic growth and that increasing GDP is what will stimulate government revenues. You mean… something like … this? http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/BLS%20GDP%20grapic.jpg
“BTW, don’t you just love Biden, who goes on the stump saying this type of job growth is impossible, and that we should resign ourselves that these jobs are lost forever? Nothing like setting expectations low. Then, in the unlikely event that the economy grows at all, and we pick up a million or two jobs, he can say “it exceeded all the economists expectations!” I’m definitely voting for him. Not.”
Biden always has his shoes in his mouth munching on them managing to get out some idiotic statement… but y’know what… he’s our only real problem. You have Palin, Bachmann, and Steele, and … whatever-her-face-is-I-can’t-remember-“trade chickens for health care”-person. And while Biden may be worse than 2 of them combined (he is one person but he has the mouth of 3) we’ll just stick a cork in him and stick him in a closet.
I noticed, interestingly, that even according to Heritage.org, which states it is a Conservative think tank, doesn’t give carte blanch to every single form of tax cut as an economic driver. Also interesting, it says the Bush tax cuts don’t add much of anything to the deficit. If this is true, then the Health Care bill is a drop in the bucket, because the Bush tax cuts cost more than the Healthcare bill. So obviously the HCR Bill is not a problem. Oh, and apparently tax cuts, even according to them, do not immediately pay for themselves.
“But I’m sorry to say that won’t happen because his, your and every lib on this site’s theories on economics don’t work.”
Tell that to FDR, Eisenhower, Carter, Kennedy, Ford, and Nixon. Before Reagan the middle class was strong, the cycles of bust and boom were non-existent (except for the OPEC embargo), and there were no such thing as too big to fail. After Reagan the middle class is almost dead, the boom and bust cycle is a norm, and too big to fail is back.
^ Meh, keep the tax cuts for all I care. I just don’t want to hear any more bellyaching about deficit from those who support keeping them. The facts are there, the Bush tax cuts cost more than the Health care bill. The HCR bill is in the budget, the tax cuts, like the wars and Medicare part D, were not. If people want to repeal the HCR bill because it “costs too much” then logically they would want to do the same for the tax cuts. If not, there’s a blaring contradiction there.
Edit: Except for the marriage part. Repeal those. OR we can extend it to ALL of our law-abiding tax-paying citizen couples. Otherwise, cut ‘em. And yes, I fully realize that that will cut my own benefits, too, because my marriage exists due to a loophole.
This is a very interesting article. If you get the chance [whomever is still reading this thread] you should watch the video. Apparently we are subsidizing this behavior.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Blah blah blah “reduce the deficit” blah blah blah.
“These tax cuts add 2x the amount of the health care bill to the deficit.”
“Err… um… Deficit, what’s that?”
Mephistopheles almost 14 years ago
I agree with mytiny. There are too many people willing to loot the industry and ingenuity of those of us stupid enough to keep producing. The tax rates in this country are too high and that’s because most of the money is taken to redistribute to people unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.
Stop the looting!!!
Read Atlas Shrugged
TheFinalSolution almost 14 years ago
@ Invisible (misnomer)
If you can’t refute the premise, use ad hominem tactics. I don’t carry water for either side, but you prove you’ve already achieved points 1 and 3 on your to do list. And that’s just how easy it is.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“I mean it goes so far you all want those who illegally come in to our country LEGAL so you’ll have more voters. ”
Sorry Cupcake, the last people who tried to give illegals amnesty were Bush and McCain.“You all give Obama a spending pass, when Bush did it you ripped him apart.”
You clamor about the spending on the health care bill and then defend the tax cuts costing 2x more which benefit a far smaller portion of the population.“Mayor Daley can suggest ramming a rifle w/ bayonet up someones rear then firing it and you are not demanding him to step down.”
Yay guns.“You all sicken me, this is why I stopped posting here for so long.”
Welcome back.“Then you want those who do not have money to live off of those who do. What is this called? ”
‘You making up stuff’? But I’ve heard through the grapevine that those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they’re lazy, while those who are rich are rich because they’re hard workers. I admire Bernie Madoff’s “hard work” and that CEOs must work 500x more than their average worker. Good show.“It really seems you liberals want more government and”
I giggle at this statement as I watch Conservatives try to use government to ban, imprison, or otherwise outlaw gays. Texas, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts (the constant attempts by the Right to repeal their equal rights) for starters. I also laugh hysterically at history showing that government grew from Clinton to Bush, not the other way around.Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
(cont) “This Congress and Administration is only for wealth redistribution to the freeloaders (that vote for Democrats).”
As opposed to last Congress’ and Administration’s redistribution of wealth to the upper class free-loaders who vote Republican. Middle class wages have stagnated in the past 10 years. All of that wealth has been usurped by the wealthy and often taken out of the country.Joe Snedaker almost 14 years ago
Jade
You said: “Sorry Cupcake, the last people who tried to give illegals amnesty were Bush and McCain.”
I know Bush tried to make illegals legal. No clue why, but keep in mind this was also when I feel Bush was becoming more of a democrat AND the congress WAS democrats.
You said: “You clamor about the spending on the health care bill and then defend the tax cuts costing 2x more which benefit a far smaller portion of the population.”
?????
You said: “But I’ve heard through the grapevine that those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they’re lazy, while those who are rich are rich because they’re hard workers. I admire Bernie Madoff’s “hard work” and that CEOs must work 500x more than their average worker. Good show.”
Those who are unemployed are likely hard works. Those who are not employed or never been (seriously) employed are the lazy piles I refer to. Please do not under mind my intelligence and act as if they do not exist. Also I NEVER stayed those who are rich are hard working, but it is THEIR money, not yours. Right?
You said: ” I giggle at this statement as I watch Conservatives try to use government to ban, imprison, or otherwise outlaw gays. Texas, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts (the constant attempts by the Right to repeal their equal rights) for starters.”
Once again, if the gay agenda was not being force fed it would not be a huge problem that it is.
You said: “I also laugh hysterically at history showing that government grew from Clinton to Bush, not the other way around.”
WHAT?!?!?! Please show, and make it creditable information. All I see is just the opposite, till the last year, Bush did start pushing a larger government (bail outs), but again, partly due to more democrats in house and senate.
BTW The wealthy vote Republican, not because of “Congress’ and Administration’s redistribution of wealth to the upper class free-loaders”, but because they have enough brains to realize that the democrats want to take their money, unless you vote for them, then you can lie and cheat the IRS, just ask most of Obama’s flunky’s.
I don’t feel I’ll be around long, too many brainless here. I do not think you are one of them, you do have intelligence, I just feel you are misinformed a lot of time. We’ll just have to see…
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
With one of the lowest overall tax rates in the industrialized world, especially for the wealthy, and reductions in rates under Obama for the “middle class” for a change, well, consider the source.
With concern for those over-taxed corporations, folks might review when the REPUBLICAN led Congress in 2001 AGAIN REDUCED royalties paid by oil companies on deep water wells in the Gulf of Mexico. OIL is one of the most subsidized operations going, and they still stick it to us at the pump!! Welcome to the Bush Energy Policy!
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Just in case you think I’m B.Sing about Exxon and GE
The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
Creniere almost 14 years ago
Jade for Queen! Empress! Ruler of all Who Walk the Earth!
gocomics almost 14 years ago
Jade, you rule.
poparu almost 14 years ago
What is a BUSH TAX CUT? I am retired, not rich, and my taxes went up a small amount under bush, not down.
Joe Snedaker almost 14 years ago
dtroutma
You are blinded by “big oil” hatred. Last I heard big oil makes less per gallon the the government and less then MOST states.
To me it looks like big oil is actually the government. All other profits goes to the crude oil which is….
OPEC, not big oil.
Jade
I am glad you can accept that we both have our own bias. I agree with this. Also, about GE. I think the company stinks anyway, this year alone my 2 1/2 year old microwave and 2 1/2 year old washer stopped working. Neither were over used.
BTW I do not like any US based corporation doing business over seas. Takes the profits from the US and you get to play the tax game as GE does. I do not agree with this.
So this goes to prove further that Obama’s ridiculous tax increases affect small US based business, like the one I am currently employed at. Which is a fact to say, this can very well destroy the struggling small business in this country.
Joe Snedaker almost 14 years ago
poparu
Whatever… I made 30K and ubder per year and got a small tax cut and a $300 & $1500 tax check.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“So this goes to prove further that Obama’s ridiculous tax increases affect small US based business, like the one I am currently employed at. Which is a fact to say, this can very well destroy the struggling small business in this country.”
Businesses didn’t start pouring overseas January of 2009… . And … “what increases?”pirate227 almost 14 years ago
She’s the Michele Bachman of the comic world.
spelvin2002 almost 14 years ago
I studied the cartoon and agreed with the cartoonist’s theme that middle America wants some relief from the effects of the Bush tax cuts. I also read the comments, which have ranged from simple name-calling to outright lies, which informs me that a comics forum is not a venue to expect thoughtful discourse about politics.
digasi almost 14 years ago
Liberals or conservatives both take money and give it to someone else. The only difference is who they give it too.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
^ No argument there.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
tinytown, a friend OWNED a small oil company, wells, refinery, and stations- he stated “Owning an oil company is a license to print money”. I happen to have the MMS regulations sitting beside me, and have been reviewing some of the egregious reductions in royalties Cheney handed out to his buddies, yep we really needed to subsidize their operations, right.
That big sunflower for BP, the pantsuit lady who disappeared from our TVs after the spill trying to tell us ” the deeper we drill, the better you like us”– only a totally uninformed moron can really think oil companies make less than the government off a barrel of oil. Folks who think that also ignore all the other products beside gasoline that come from that barrel.
An accurate cartoon of the glass reflecting the Bush tax cuts would show money flowing to CEOs and corporations, out of people’s pockets, and not hardly flowing to the IRS.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
I had a gay agenda, but I misplaced it.
Carolo1 almost 14 years ago
THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH UPED THE NATONIAL DEBT MORE THAN THE TWO WARS FOR OIL DID
Joe Snedaker almost 14 years ago
I am done being nice and holding back I how I feel about liberals.
Once again the ignorance (stupid on purpose) in this room floors me. I do not see me returning. To WAY to much ignorance. Not dealing with it any more.
You liberal need to study what the Bush tax cut did to middle class and LOWER. Remember I made 30K and was a family of 4 at that time and received an extra 1500 in 2008 and I got the 300 a few year before that. Who did that help?
With Obama the taxes on business will increase insanely, especially with that unconstitutional mess called Cuban healthcare reform (AKA Obamacare). As well someone has to start paying for all the money he borrowed and blindly printed. If you do not see this you are clueless or ignorant (remember ignorant is stupid on purpose).
And for those who think a tax cut on the rich is a bad thing, let me say this. HOW EMPLOYS??????????? THE POOR OR THE RICH????????? So you want your employer to have less money? That is stupid. As well who buys more? The poor or the rich?? Thought so! Most of you want to be rich and are jealous of them so you want their money and the government will give it to you. Isn’t that stealing?
I might check back later today to see what kind of responses I get, but I know they will be ignorant thoughtless responses.
Jade I want to say even though I disagree with you, the above does NOT point toward you. You do have intelligence in your posts, they may get under my skin or I do not agree with you, but I am NOT calling you ignorant. But pretty much every one else.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Sooky Rottweiler says; How about dogs? Am I stupid?
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
tinybrain- in actuality, when it comes to products that keep the country running and provide the steady jobs, it is MIDDLE CLASS spending, NOT toys for the rich that runs the real economy. A vacation in Aruba doesn’t do squat for the folks in the daily grind, producing for others in the daily grind.
Joe Snedaker almost 14 years ago
dtroutma the brainless
WHO PAYS THE MIDDLE CLASS????!!!!!!!!
Use your brain.
disgustedtaxpayer almost 14 years ago
Lisa Benson has it correctly.
Dummies must wait until the Dems refuse to extend the Bush tax rates, and wait until the IRS taxes are computed next year……it already has been noted by critics that a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 (certainly not RICH) will see a $2,000 hike in their annual IRS income tax.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
BBC article points out average total tax hit on Americans’ income is 17%. A break for the domicile isn’t that big a deal and seems a fair exemption, but most of our tax code IS exemption-(for “special interests”) that is a large part of what needs to change.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Two kids, tax break, three- double your taxes, four quadruple your taxes- simple fact- more kids= higher cost to “society” so you pay MORE, not LESS!! We don’t run family farms and send the kids to work in the fields any more!
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Howie, what I find in reviewing the “TEA Party” folks, and most conservatives, like those deniers of climate change, no knowledge of actual impacts of war, or what it means to actually climb a mountain, have no life experiences to judge from, and are easy targets for lies. Those who HAVE lived, and done something, have a better base for judgement.
The basic theory of good writing is: write what you know- as in have lived. Most “conservatives” have little to write, and only repeat what they hear, and unfortunately, believe.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“EVERYONE got a tax cut.”
I notice you put a few marriage provisions in there. In that case, no, not everyone, thanks to DOMA. It looks to me more like couples that have been subsidizing relationship benefits they are specifically denied will be on more equal footing to me. It’s kind of like what you learn in Kindergarden… if you can’t share then it gets taken away from you.“This is what you people want repealed because it’s been drummed into your heads that the tax cuts were for the wealthy.”
The center didn’t look specifically at the top 3 percent, but it did look at the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent. The top 1 percent took 29.5 percent of the benefits, and the top 5 percent took 44.2 percent. So if the top 5 percent took less than 50 percent of the benefits, the top 3 percent certainly didn’t reach that 50 percent threshold. A rough estimate that splits the difference would be that the top 3 percent got 37 percent to 39 percent of the benefits. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/14/jim-mcdermott/jim-mcdermott-says-3-percent-got-majority-benefit-/
”^ You act as if all money we earn belongs to the government, and we should be grateful for any they decide we get to keep…”
Not all of it, on.. but a portion of it. This is from the Bible, so I would imagine it would be a Conservative belief.So here’s the thing, apparently those tax cuts will affect everyone. So what? Cut it. You can’t bellyache about fixing the deficit when we’ve got this huge budget shortfall here and this is one thing that is causing the problem. This is a BIGGER deficit problem than the Healthcare bill… and for all of those people being so adamant about repealing it because “we can’t afford it” we should ALL be adamant about repealing this since we can’t afford it either!
“But that’ll cost you the benefit of filing jointly.” (which yes, I currently have) I was going to lose that anyway. Oh well. I’ll live.
“Uh Doc, before calculating dedections the tax liablility for 50K is almost 6K, with the tax cut you save about $600. Ok that isn’t much. BUT the gov is working to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction (ouch) and the charitable deduction (another ouch)”
Someone with a 50K income isn’t making the charitable deductions for that to really affect them. They were already in that range, it just brings the gigantic charitable deductions down to receive the same deduction rate as the smaller one [read: equal]. And since they’re charitable donations, they’re solely for charity, which means they wouldn’t withhold money they were going to donate because it was solely out of the kindness of their heart, right? *“(Note: the site doesn’t say whether or not tax cuts stimulate the economy. For that I refer to HeritageFoundation. You can rely on the Huffington Post and Krugman.)”
They do. But at a 2% rate. Far less than the 50%+ rates of other options. As I mentioned in a post on another comic… if you aren’t poor, you aren’t going to spend your tax cut money, you’re going to save it. The better you are off economically the less inclined you are by spending motivators. When I received my Bush tax rebate it went nowhere but my savings account.As for trickle down economics… during the Bush years when we had all of these unpaid for tax cuts we didn’t see much in terms of economic growth compared to the Clinton years. Trickle down economics don’t work. The super-rich do not “buy.” We have a spending based economy. Right now the “rich” invest overseas – people overseas will work for less.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Proof:
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/carolyn-maloney/congresswoman-says-democratic-presidents-create-mo/
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“At least that liberal writer was honest enough to put in the caveats, which you and she promptly ignore.”
Heritage.org is a Conservative site. Do they list their own caveats?“Lower tax rates have two specific purposes: (1) to stimulate the economy leading to (2) higher tax revenues.”
Tax cuts have to be paid for. Tax cuts do not magically lead to more revenues. This is a Conservative mantra that requires caveats. For (1) to occur, people have to have a need to spend, AND a need to spend HERE. Some of our largest companies such as Exxon and GE don’t either pay taxes here or they profit FROM their taxes here (GE, 1.1 billion). That’s not government revenue. Many higher-income people have ways to avoid paying taxes or not paying at the rate they should. Warren Buffet, for example, noted that he can pay less percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary who makes a small fraction. Also, it requires that the actions performed by people are all taxable, and that they’re going to perform actions and not just save it to generate more money for themselves. This isn’t universal. Poorer people DO spend what they receive in tax cuts… but most tax cuts don’t go to them (40+% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of earners, leaving the other 50% to be distributed amongst 95% of the population). (2) This relies on point (1), that the money you return to them in tax cuts is immediately spent on economically motivating things, for example if a couple gets a few dollars back in taxes and runs out and buys dinner. Otherwise these are not paid for. $1 in tax cuts typically amounts to $1.02 in economic spending. Not much of a return compared to other programs. It’s the least effective way to generate spending. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/“PS: As much as I appreciate your domestic problems, we’re discussing tax policy, not the gay agenda. Even people filing as “Single” got a tax cut, so yes, EVERYBODY got a tax cut.”
As much as you like to gripe about taxation it perplexes me how you can’t see that religion-based taxation isn’t an issue. Or is it you simply fight for the tax situations of people you like? If even Google is giving their workers a $1,069 pay increase because of unfair taxation of same-sex couples, that should strike you as a tax issue worthy of consideration. It isn’t merely trickle-down economics that is flawed.“PPS: Please stop bringing up the bible. I don’t think you believe in it, and I know I don’t. I hate when non-believers use it as some sort of rational to prove their point.”
Actually I was raised Christian and believe in large portions of it. However since so many of our policies, (see my previous paragraph on “PS”) are Biblically based (“people can’t have this because of the Bible”) I find it pertinent to point out the cherry-picking in those statements. Now while you yourself may not believe in it, that’s just fine, but if rule-makers like to cite it when it suits their purposes, I see no reason why not to cite it, especially considering your previous statement of “gay agenda” as if equal rights and treatment as citizens of this country is a special interest… unless there was a “black agenda” back in the Jim Crow days.Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases.”
Restrained federal spending works… assuming the private sector isn’t in the tank. Otherwise, as in our situation, restraining federal spending restrains the only source of jobs. Government investment in infrastructure: roads, bridges, all of this stuff needs to be done, and needs government investment. Minimum regulation… how’d that work out?“And I don’t know where you got the idea that the rich sit on their money. They put it to work. If taxes are low, the economy is expanding, and they put it to work here. If taxes are high and the economy is stagnant, they put it to work somewhere else. They are rich either way.”
So why is it more jobs were created under Clinton than there were under Bush, even after so many tax cuts were given to these “job creators?” The wage gap between the top 5% and “everyone else” widened by orders of magnitude… . Trickle down doesn’t appear to work… .I will say one thing I think would actually work is a simpler tax code. One with fewer loopholes.
SherriannPederson almost 14 years ago
How can you trust the IRS when,….. No real men are bald…….. so to believe a bald man means you will believe a wolfe in sleep’s clothing!….
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“But I’m sorry to say that won’t happen because his, your and every lib on this site’s theories on economics don’t work.”
Even though it’s been within the last year or so that our GDP has started to climb out from its contraction? You mentioned that GDP is a component of economic growth and that increasing GDP is what will stimulate government revenues. You mean… something like … this? http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/BLS%20GDP%20grapic.jpg“BTW, don’t you just love Biden, who goes on the stump saying this type of job growth is impossible, and that we should resign ourselves that these jobs are lost forever? Nothing like setting expectations low. Then, in the unlikely event that the economy grows at all, and we pick up a million or two jobs, he can say “it exceeded all the economists expectations!” I’m definitely voting for him. Not.”
Biden always has his shoes in his mouth munching on them managing to get out some idiotic statement… but y’know what… he’s our only real problem. You have Palin, Bachmann, and Steele, and … whatever-her-face-is-I-can’t-remember-“trade chickens for health care”-person. And while Biden may be worse than 2 of them combined (he is one person but he has the mouth of 3) we’ll just stick a cork in him and stick him in a closet.I noticed, interestingly, that even according to Heritage.org, which states it is a Conservative think tank, doesn’t give carte blanch to every single form of tax cut as an economic driver. Also interesting, it says the Bush tax cuts don’t add much of anything to the deficit. If this is true, then the Health Care bill is a drop in the bucket, because the Bush tax cuts cost more than the Healthcare bill. So obviously the HCR Bill is not a problem. Oh, and apparently tax cuts, even according to them, do not immediately pay for themselves.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
“But I’m sorry to say that won’t happen because his, your and every lib on this site’s theories on economics don’t work.”
Tell that to FDR, Eisenhower, Carter, Kennedy, Ford, and Nixon. Before Reagan the middle class was strong, the cycles of bust and boom were non-existent (except for the OPEC embargo), and there were no such thing as too big to fail. After Reagan the middle class is almost dead, the boom and bust cycle is a norm, and too big to fail is back.
Seems like Gramps likes the 1920s.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
^ Meh, keep the tax cuts for all I care. I just don’t want to hear any more bellyaching about deficit from those who support keeping them. The facts are there, the Bush tax cuts cost more than the Health care bill. The HCR bill is in the budget, the tax cuts, like the wars and Medicare part D, were not. If people want to repeal the HCR bill because it “costs too much” then logically they would want to do the same for the tax cuts. If not, there’s a blaring contradiction there.
Edit: Except for the marriage part. Repeal those. OR we can extend it to ALL of our law-abiding tax-paying citizen couples. Otherwise, cut ‘em. And yes, I fully realize that that will cut my own benefits, too, because my marriage exists due to a loophole.
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/pakistan-hires-transgender-workers-to-shame-tax-delinquents/
This is a very interesting article. If you get the chance [whomever is still reading this thread] you should watch the video. Apparently we are subsidizing this behavior.