Should Senator Clinton keep fighting through the convention?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Bandit88, May 5, 2008.

?

Clinton should...

  1. fight it out at the convention.

    25 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. terminate her candidacy before the convention.

    9 vote(s)
    25.7%
  3. be Obama's running mate.

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  4. not be Obama's running mate.

    9 vote(s)
    25.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308
    you can take stats and make them say anthiing. THe CBO estimated that the W tax cuts would increase the budget deficit (duh) by 60 billion in 2003 and 340 billion by 2008. Before W passed them


    In case in republicans want to distance themselves from this fiscal irresponsiblility (tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts) the vote broke down like ths:
    House

    Reb: 224 for
    1 against 99.6% for
    Dems: 7 for
    198 against 99.6 aganst

    Senate For - Against
    Rebublicans: 48 - 3
    Democrats: 2 - 46

    The biggest cuts came on dividends and capital gains. Not payroll taxes, which is where the poor and middle class make the majority of their income.

    Families earning more than 1 million a year taxes dropped more sharply than any group in the country

    The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

    Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says - New York Times


    Now, I'm ready for the "I hate the rich" comments, but I don't, but facts are facts, the rich have done better than the rest of us under this presidency.
     
  2. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55
    i believe it is something along these lines.Top 1%=36%
    top 10%= 67 %
    top 25 %=85%
    There arent a lot of percentage points left for the bottom 75 % and the bottom 40 % are a negative 4.

    That tax the rich mentality isn't going over very well in maryland.they just passed a millionaire tax.A tax just for millionaires.So what happens...the millionaires are moving to another state.So, Maryland is about to lose the revenue they would have received before the tax was implemented and the entire revenue from these millionaires since it was implemented.Someone needed to inform the Maryland legislature that 100% of nothing is ...Nothing.
     
  3. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55
    Do you realize that capital gains tax revenue actually increases when capital gains taxes are cut?Isn't that what is most important?The actual tax revenue in the government coffers and not who benefits?
     
  4. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55
    Red,they not only pay the biggest percentage of the federal tax burden ,but their tax rates are higher.If anyone gets a cut it should be them. Here is a chart for you from the congressional budget office.[​IMG]
     
  5. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308
    The top 20% paid over 80% of the taxes. How much of the wealth do they own? If they own more than the amount of tax burden they pay, then they pay a smaller percentage of their income.

    I never understand how people are on here arguing for the wealthy, claiming they need a tax break, when their income and wealth has gone up dramatically while the majority of folks have lost income.
     
  6. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55

    So some guy has worked his butt off and is lucky enough to be making a million dollars a year.At a 36% tax rate ...that is 360,000 dollars a year in taxes .How much more of his income do you want. 500,000? 750,000?Hell ,let's just take 900,000.He ought to be able to make it on 100,000 a year.

    England tried that soak the rich till they drown philosophy back in the sixties.What happened? They left the country...Think John Lennon liked it over here for the low crime rate?
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Your chart shows nothing about tax rates. Their percentage of total taxes have gone up, because their wealth that has gone up. The rich get richer because of favorable tax laws and you think they should get even more cuts? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% have effective tax rates of 26.7%, down from 33% in 2001.

    No that chart isn't from the Congressional Budget Office, only the data is. The misleading political title of the chart agrees with you, but the data really doesn't. First of all it cherry-picks two years, neither of which are current. You can't deduce a trend from only two data points. And the spread in each of those categories is 4% or less. I doubt if that is outside the error range of the data. Hardly evidence of "shifting a burden".

    Here is what the Congressional Budget Office actually says ( a republican Congress at that).

     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You are the one being soaked but you have bought the propaganda of the super-rich and are fighting their fight for them . . . at your own expense. Amazing.

    You trying to tell me that all the rich people left England? It ain't true and you can't possibly support this claim.
     
  9. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55
    No Red, that would be an article written by that left wing broadcast network CBS.

    About tax cuts ...yes, i think we all should get more tax cuts,except for the bottom that doesn't pay anything anyway.Wealthy included?...you bet...they earned it.

    so what about the deficit?When our government learns to balance it's pocketbook...Then they have the right to come back and ask for more money if the situation dictates it.I havent seen that but one or 2 years in my lifetime ,so i am not holding my breath on that one.
     
  10. kedo15

    kedo15 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    55

    Red , I don't have time to post every rich guy that left England overtheir tax policy...but,I give you the Rolling Stones

    The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don't want to screw anybody out of anything, least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30% in holding until we sort it out." No wonder Keith chooses to live not in London, or even New York City, but in Weston, Conn.

    Just google the rest ...the beatles, the stones...They all told England to kiss off back in the sixties,before the English relented somewhat .
     

Share This Page