Democrats and Raising Taxes

[metis]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

Did you ever hear "You don't get something for nothing"?

Also, let me just mention that Jesus said of taxes "Render unto Caesar...". IOW, it's only money, and there are some other things that he taught that he said are far more important.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you ever hear "You don't get something for nothing"?

Also, let me just mention that Jesus said of taxes "Render unto Caesar...". IOW, it's only money, and there are some other things that he taught that he said are far more important.

Ugh, that old argument.....
"Pay more taxes...because Jesus!"
We aren't all Christians, bub.
You're welcome to tithe something extra...no one's stopping you.

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't see it that way. Liberals screw up virtually everything they touch. Liberalism is moral, economic, and intellectual syphilis

Do you have any research to back that up or is it just feelings?

 

[Mindmaster]

So please enlighten us as to why our American factories went broke.

Two words, NAFTA and Clinton's China deal.

 

[Shad]

Republicans in Indiana raised taxes in Indianapolis to buy the Colts a damn stadium. Republicans too are fans of taxes.

That is standard regardless of party. The NFL and team owners always try to get a city to cover costs of stadiums. It happens in other sports too. Typical the scam starts by framing the stadium as a community sports/entertainment center in order to shift the optics of profits away from the league to the community. Although it is the league/owner that makes bank in almost every case.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is standard regardless of party. The NFL and team owners always try to get a city to cover costs of stadiums. It happens in other sports too. Typical the scam starts by framing the stadium as a community sports/entertainment center in order to shift the optics of profits away from the league to the community. Although it is the league/owner that makes bank in almost every case.

Yes. It makes no sense to claim raising taxes is a thing of this party or that. Anyone with half a brain should realize politician, regardless of party, are always in favor of increasing and slashing taxes when it suits them. Especially where it suits them.
But, my experience is such that California does tax me less than Indiana. I'll be at a whole new level of personal income by the time California taxes me at around the same rate as Indiana always taxed me, be it as a high school student working food service, warehouse grunt, or white coat professional.
And, without trying or really even working I make more money here in California than I did working with kids in Indiana (even as a service provider for child services).

 

[Milton Platt]

I listened to the Democrats (liberals) tonight and they were all talking about raising taxes.

The problem with Democrats / liberals is they have a real problem looking into the future to see the horrendous damage their policies do.

Do you remember when the liberals placed a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich")? What happened was the rich quit buying yachts, so the yacht manufacturers lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy - again.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Higher taxes helped pay for that. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every vagrant in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime went up, and the homeless were everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and engaging in criminal activities. The police finally had enough and told the libs they had to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Liberalism gone mad again.

Want to raise taxes on the corporations? Since all competitors will have their taxes raised, they’ll just raise their prices and pass it along to the little guy – the consumer. We’ll be paying the higher taxes for the corporations. The little guy gets screwed again. Or, corporations will leave America and operate out of lower tax countries. Common sense. Liberals don’t have it.

Tax the wealthy? A great many of them will move to whatever state or country gives them a better deal. Redistribute their wealth? Aryeh Spero noted, “It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.” The same thing will happen in America.

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left-wing economic scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

Democrats…

Discussion...

The key issue is that the very wealthy actually end up paying lower taxes than the "little guy" you worry about. Trump doesn't pay any taxes and probably won't for some years to come. That's because he has taken several bankruptcies, leaving your "little guys" holding the bag and he can now deduct those losses over several years and not pay taxes at all.
It isn't so much about wealth redistributiion as it is about leveling the playing field.

 

[Spartan]

Did you ever hear "You don't get something for nothing"?

Also, let me just mention that Jesus said of taxes "Render unto Caesar...". IOW, it's only money, and there are some other things that he taught that he said are far more important.

Normal taxes are one thing. But you let the liberals loose with what they want to do and there's not enough coins one can pull out of the mouth of a fish to pay them.

 

[Spartan]

LOL. The last effort at balancing the budget was by Clinton.

LOL. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into that budget by the Republicans.

"The budget deals he (Clinton) made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993." - Real Clear Politics

Liberal economics are for the mathematically-challenged.

 

[SoyLeche]

LOL. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into that budget by the Republicans.

"The budget deals he (Clinton) made with the congressional Republicans were significant, but not nearly as significant as the tax increase on the wealthy that he passed, without a single Republican vote, in his first budget in 1993." - Real Clear Politics

Liberal economics are for the mathematically-challenged.

Like I said - Democrat president and Republican Congress. It’s the only way to go.

 

[Spartan]

Like I said - Democrat president and Republican Congress. It’s the only way to go.

We saw what happened with Obama as President. It was a train wreck. If the Dems ever had a conservative as Prez then I might go along with it.

 

[metis]

Normal taxes are one thing. But you let the liberals loose with what they want to do and there's not enough coins one can pull out of the mouth of a fish to pay them.

It appears that you are unaware of the fact that it has been largely Republican administrations from Reagan on that have had more deficit creation, and if you were honestly worried about that you certainly wouldn't be supporting Trump.

IOW, you're working from an old stereotype that sometimes is true but not so much in recent decades. Obama in his first term was told by Bernanke and Paulson, both who are conservative economists, that he must deficit spend to get us a jump start to try and get us out of the Great Recession.

But the point still is that you keep taking about $, thus putting a far higher priority on that versus the morals that Jesus taught us to follow. Jesus was not a materialist, nor a hedonist, nor one who lied; but Trump certainly is. IOW, Jesus or Trump = pick one because you can't believe in "two masters" as Jesus said.

 

[SoyLeche]

We saw what happened with Obama as President. It was a train wreck. If the Dems ever had a conservative as Prez then I might go along with it.

He had the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to deal with, and he still did a decent job of reducing the deficit at the end of his second term.

then Trump took over...

 

[Spartan]

He had the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression to deal with, and he still did a decent job of reducing the deficit at the end of his second term.

then Trump took over...

Yeah, and Trump had to spend hundreds of billions to fix the military that that idiot Obama and his liberal friends let deteriorate. That's how Obama reduced the deficit - by gutting the military. That's what the stiff-necked liberals always do.

 

[Spartan]

It appears that you are unaware of the fact that it has been largely Republican administrations from Reagan on that have had more deficit creation, and if you were honestly worried about that you certainly wouldn't be supporting Trump.

That's disingenuous.

Regarding Reagan: "The smallest amount by which a Reagan budget was increased by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was $50 billion... When Reagan’s tax plan was passed in 1982, there were supposed to be two dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax cuts. But spending never got cut (the Democrats reneged). In the end, for every new dollar of tax revenue, the Democrats spent $1.80. Rather than cut spending, they let the government shut down and blamed Reagan."

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMLETELY DIFFERENT: THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX CUTS

As for Trump: Trump had to spend hundreds of billions to fix the military that that idiot Obama and his liberal friends let deteriorate.

If Democrats ever try to balance a budget they do it by massively raising taxes. Republicans (i.e. conservatives) traditionally try to do it by lowering spending.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the OP is urging more careful consideration of agendas.

No. The intent of the OP is clear ...

Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left-wing economic scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and initiative and earning it one’s self.

It's arrogant right-wing ad hominem.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. The intent of the OP is clear ...

​

It's arrogant right-wing ad hominem.

I was reading between the lines of the boilerplate.
(Sometimes, posters bury their message that way.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was reading between the lines of the boilerplate.
(Sometimes, posters bury their message that way.)

You scruffy, two-bit,
but nevertheless insightful and caring
poor excuse for a nincompoop!​

 

[metis]

That's disingenuous.

And that's a lie.

Regarding Reagan: "The smallest amount by which a Reagan budget was increased by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was $50 billion... When Reagan’s tax plan was passed in 1982, there were supposed to be two dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax cuts. But spending never got cut (the Democrats reneged). In the end, for every new dollar of tax revenue, the Democrats spent $1.80. Rather than cut spending, they let the government shut down and blamed Reagan."

The reality that you either forget or aren't aware of is the simple fact that Reagan firmly believe in the "Trickle-Down Theory", thus spending more federal money trough deficit spending would generate more jobs that would then supposedly balance the budget. It never got close to doing that, and it never has.

Also, if Reagan was supposedly so frugal and the Dems so careless, he could have used his veto and renegotiated. But he didn't.

As for Trump: Trump had to spend hundreds of billions to fix the military that that idiot Obama and his liberal friends let deteriorate.

So, Obama is an "idiot" but you support Trump? Got it. What more can I say.

If Democrats ever try to balance a budget they do it by massively raising taxes. Republicans (i.e. conservatives) traditionally try to do it by lowering spending.

Again, you've made it abundantly clear that your highest priority is money, not what can be done to help Americans or what is the most moral thing for us to do.

You praise spending more money on the military, which I also do at times, but you fail to ask what's the down side of putting so much money there while other programs are reduced or eliminated, such as the SNAP cuts in April that will leave roughly 1 million children in poor families with less to eat. How is that in any way complying with what Jesus taught? Did he teach "Make more bombs and let poor children go hungry"?. What kind of church would teach that?

Anyhow, I'm moving on as you post above sickens me because it's so utterly twisted.

 

[pearl]

The reality that you either forget or aren't aware of is the simple fact that Reagan firmly believe in the "Trickle-Down Theory", thus spending more federal money trough deficit spending would generate more jobs that would then supposedly balance the budget. It never got close to doing that, and it never has.

Some things are just selectively overlooked. Clinton and the Republicans balanced the budget. George H Bush found it was necessary to raise taxes after promising he would not, it cost him a second term. HW went on a spending spree,