Reply With Quote
ownage!
Yeah let's hear the (lack of) Repug candidate/Repug poster response.
Thank you hitmanyr2k
when they hear him sounding like Obama? I wish they had played this clip at the Republican debates when the candidates were up there kissing Ron's ass
ownage!
Yeah let's hear the (lack of) Repug candidate/Repug poster response.
Thank you hitmanyr2k
St Ronnie, Nixon, maybe even Goldwater wouldn't stand a chance of being nominated now by the extreme crazies leading the Repugs.
St Ronnie would be disqualified by non-elected Repug dictator Grover Norquist, since St Ronnie actually raised taxes. He also railed against tax loopholes.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-04-2011 at 07:51 PM.
ronnie would be a democrat by today's standard. these modern-day republicans and whoever loved them.
Yes, remove the loopholes. That is a far cry different than what Obama has planned. He also wants to raise their tax rates. The rates were reduced, and many loopholes closed under Reagan and the democrat congress of that time frame.when they hear him sounding like Obama? I wish they had played this clip at the Republican debates when the candidates were up there kissing Ron's ass
My God...
You two don't know what Reagan was all about.
Were either of you two even alive when he was president?
bull . make them pay their equal share. why do you protect a class of people that would never accept you? and one that you or your offspring will ever be a part of?
Wild Cobra, you aren't rich and most likely never will be rich. Why is your interest in their well-being over your own?
It's obvious your hatred blinds you to any compassion of the rich.
The tax structure is too complex to begin with. The problem is not to low of tax rates, but all the loopholes to get out of paying taxes.
Now the dirty little secret that liberals refuse to acknowledge is the rich who directly pay a low tax rate are normally double taxed. Long term capital gains are taxed at a low tax rate. Any capital gain is realized by being an owner of an en y that has already paid taxes. Ay least in most cases... GE with all the loopholes given to them is one of many exceptions. Corporations are already taxed at a 35% rate, and capital gains realized have been taxed, then taxed again by the share holder.
Real estate is a different issue. With low capital gains and no double taxation for real estate, that was a hotbed to fuel the house flipping concept, and housing market bubble bursting.
How should we treat capital gains? If you buy a house for $200,000, then sell it 10 years later for $300,000, what tax rate should you pay on that $100,000 capital gain? Was there any gain with inflation? How do you index corporate capital gains to inflation to make them fair too, that is is you even index real estate to inflation?
It's complicated. To just complain, is unfounded in my view. The complaint has to be more specific.
Because, unlike you, I am not a spiteful individual who hates everyone who has done better in life than I have.
bull . make people pay according to their income. you want loopholes for the rich (a class of people to which you do not belong).
bull . you are spiteful, but you're spite is directed at democrats.
OK, You have me there.
Reagan cut taxes his first year in office but didn't have the money to pay for those cuts. And then every year of his presidency beyond the first year he rolled back a percentage of those tax cuts or raised the tax on something else trying to reduce the deficit. It's very similar to what Obama wants now....rollback the Bush tax cuts, go back to the Clinton era of tax rates and close loopholes. The GOP calls that class warfare. It's really no different than what Reagan did multiple times during his presidency. In today's politics Reagan would be viewed as a RINO by the GOP.
the tax code has been gamed and compromised by the wealthy and corps into opaque complexity TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.
The tax code has been gamed by CONGRESS to THEIR benefit to shake down corporations.
the wealthy and corps have bought Exec/legislative cooperation to game the tax code.
Do you really think the Congress does anything if it's not being paid?
So we agree that a complex, loophole riddled tax code benefits both republicans and democrats in congress?
In so far as they're basically owned by the beneficiaries of said complex tax code, absolutely.
I'm guessing that GE loves how Congressional shake downs feel.
You realize Warren Buffet has a low effective tax rate because of Capital gains taxes , do you?
My compassion for greedy a-holes involves a 7.62×51mm.
There are a few people that should be and are worth millions from their contributions to society, much of them are not on wall-street
That's bull . Obama does not want to rollback the Bush tax cuts. If he did he would have let them expire.
THERE THEY GO AGAIN
Because, I'm busy, too lazy, and couldn't put it better myself...
I notice this meme has kind of faded...even this thread had fallen to page 2. I guess someone schooled Obama on to what Reagan was actually proposing.The Washington Post’s Al Kamen today spotlights the Center for American Progress’s latest bit of mischief (“Ronald Reagan, The Original Class Warrior?“)—reposting a speech of Ronald Reagan from 1986 in which the Gipper said:
Gee—the Gipper sounds just like Obama, doesn’t he, advocating “class warfare” and all that. I know the Center for American Progress thinks the American people are stupid, but what Kamen’s excuse?
I thought liberals and journalists were all supposed to pay attention to “context” (at least that’s what their postmodern literary theory would have you believe), so how can anyone with a straight face compare Obama’s proposed “Buffett rule,” which seeks to raise income tax rates on the rich, with Reagan’s 1986 proposal, which sought to cut the top income tax rate by a full 10 percentage points (from 38 percent to 28 percent)?
So I’ll propose to Obama and the Center for American Progress that we go back to the Reagan plan, and cut rates along with the crazy patchwork of deductions and schemes that people like Buffett exploit. Deal? I didn’t think so. One thing that should be clear by now is that the North Star for liberals is always higher tax rates in the rich rather than actual revenue produced or the tax code’s effect on economic growth. It represents the apotheosis of what Jim Piereson calls “punitive liberalism.” Too bad we have to suffer from punitive journalism from Al Kamen at the same time.
For a full fisking of this whole sorry effort to re-enlist Reagan in the Democratic Party, I refer once again to my article in the current issue of Commentary (though it is still behind a subscriber firewall for the time being).
Steven Hayward at Powerline and you, are both ing stupid. We have already been over this. The Buffett Rule is specific proposal to close the earned income tax loophole and does not seek to raise income tax rates on the rich.
Obama has ALSO proposed letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250k, but that is not the Buffett Rule. You inability to mange the most basic concepts is laughable.
And, this is why Obama is no Reagan...
As Steven Hayward said, we could both get behind the tax policy Reagan was describing in that speech. Closing loopholes and tax rate cuts for all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
