Assured

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair. But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity.

I have studied Economics, yes, but not taxation - LOL! Fiscal policy, yes (which includes taxation of course), but not, "how much tax are you likely to encourage without people trying to evade it" at a certain level. But to a certain extent, I don't care. I don't think it is fair to reduce wealthy people's rates any more. I say this because they got a 30 point cut at the upper end over a 30 year period. (We just weren't supposed to notice.) That is a substantialtax cut, and that is enough. Any more and the rest of us are going to get hit with crippling Federal taxes (including the consumption taxes that Isaiah mentioned) that will lower our individual standard of living and cut into our collective ability to provide demand for good and services, which will depress the economy further. These are the kinds of things that I have studied in school. I knew that "W" did not use good fiscal policy, and we have the proof - cutting taxes did not work. The 90's were marked by high unemployment in everything but dot coms in Silicon Valley. President Clinton did an across the board tax hike shortly after taking office in 1993 and there was a recovery that was stimulated in part by a fully-funded government that helped to generate demand for goods, services and most importantly, labor. If you want to restructure government, don't do it when aggregate demand is at an all-time low, and unemployment is high. That is the time for the government to use fiscal policy (taxing and spending) carefully and responsibly. But deficit reduction needs to be a priority as well, so now is definitely no time to be cutting revenue. So Isaiah I agree with you that spending cuts will be needed in order to reduce the deficit, in spite of our slow economy. So if poor people will be on their own a little more, it doesn't make sense to take what little money that they have. Just let them be a little bit more on their own. But it is beyond cruel to cut things like Medicaid and Food Stamps and to ALSO tax them more heavily and leave them to starve. Also as I mentioned the economy will come to a screeching halt, because these people spend every penny.

No, they won't - you need spending cuts also, of course. But I'll drag out that old tired phrase again - you don't quit your full-time job to get a part time one, when you owe money. You keep your full-time job and cut spending, of course. You might even get an additional job (increase your revenue) to make sure you get it paid down. But quitting your full-time job wouldn't enter your mind. Nor should we be even talking about reducing tax rates. It's insanity, and in a context in which everyone's tax rates will be going up anyway (the Bush tax cuts are set to expire according to budget rules because they are unsustainable), cutting the upper brackets means the rest of us will pay even more than we were going to! But yes, everyone's rates will go up and spending will be cut. That is going to happen. The top 1%, however, don't want to be part of the "everyone" and that just isn't fair, nor will it be good for the economy because extra money that this group gets will be saved and not spent. It is the demand generated by the rest of us spending that will create jobs. 10 years of the Bush tax cuts proved that cutting the upper brackets doesn't stimulate the economy. Demand (generated by the rest of us) stimulates the economy. What's good for most will then be good for all.

The media isn't silent, they are just painting a different picture. Of course they won't mention this . I sincerely hope the rich don't pay more taxes, you'd have to be a baffoon in economics to think that would solve the financial problems we see. It is one sure way to dry up jobs and increase prices though . These clowns are going to MAGNIFY the gap between the rich and poor if they have their way, which they won't. Perhaps I should explain something - everyone is supposed to pay more in taxes, because the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and we have a deficit to pay down. But the richest 1% of the population wants a different tax scheme so that they can get out of paying their share of the deficit. If their taxes don't go up, then the rest of us will pay even more than we were going to have to. That's the problem.

It's true...

Thank you very much, KatyAnn and MorningGlory! I have just got here from Crosswalk, which shut everything down except their Facebook pages (and I don't do Facebook). We were in the middle of discussing the Tea Party, when they shut everything down. Sue244 came here from Crosswalk, too. She is on the other side of the aisle, but we get along just fine. Thank you again!

I thought this thread was about the Tea Party? Why would you not invite comment from people who keep up with politics? If we all agreed there would be nothing to discuss.

I am having a hard time believing this with comparison to your last post. On the contrary, the taxation issue is what made me switch over to voting for Democrats. I simply am not wealthy enough to benefit from these proposed rehauls of the tax code. The progressive code spreads the burden fairly IMO. Dodge. You keep showing more and more evidence of being on assignment here. I fail to understand what your statement has to do with the proposed changes to the Federal tax code, which would presumably affect you. Why wouldn't a private citizen, voter and taxpayer be unhappy with a plan to raise his or her taxes? 74% of the electorate want wealthy people to pay more in taxes. I certainly did not make that up. The number is Google-able.

No, Sue. Politics is when you accommodate what the voting public appears to want. I said the Republicans appear to be catering to campaign contributors. The first instance is our democracy in action (democracy as opposed to communism - we are a democratic "republic"), and the second instance is the beginnings of what could eventually be described as corruption.

I am having a hard time believing this with comparison to your last post. On the contrary, the taxation issue is what made me switch over to voting for Democrats. I simply am not wealthy enough to benefit from these proposed rehauls of the tax code. The progressive code spreads the burden fairly IMO.

Name one politician that isn't influenced by big money interest. President Obama, who got a lot of money from banks yet signed Dodd Frank into law and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also got a lot of money from Big Oil, yet he wanted to cut oil subsidies. As a result of decisions he has made, much of this money is now going to Romney, because President Obama won't play their game. ROFLOL. You cannot possibly be serious. But the sad thing is I know you are. Its post like this that remind me why I don't take any of your post seriously. Your double standards that you hold and your blind allegaince even in the face of overwhelming evidence of Obamas many faults is just to much some times. Obama is in the back pocket of the UNIONS and the GREEN agenda. Both which have done much harm recently to the US. The Green agenda has cost thousands of jobs through out the US, and as far as Unions go just look at Detort. If you really believe that Obama isn't influenced by money then you really arn't looking hard enough. Oh and here is some information about how your hero has bullied the press (which considering I will never understand their love afair with him since he treats them like junk) Here is a quote from a piece in the Huffington Post (you should have no objections to the source since it is left wing) "Compounding the complaint stemming from the June 6th Great Escape to the Feinstein Compound is an incident from last night, where the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, who ended up sequestered to a pool house during an Obama fundraiser." and Politico did a nice report talking about his treatment of the press, especially any press who dares to disagree with him." The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse." You can take about the Knoch brothers all you want, I personally have never heard of them until you brought them up, but IMHO they are the Left wing fall guy that George Soros is to the Right. I roll my eyes at the Right blaiming everything on Soros so I'm going to roll my eyes at you blaiming the Knoch brother. Since i try to avoide a double standard as much as possible. Don't be silly. President Obama is a politician, and for that reason he has tried to do what the majority of voters would like him to do. Any way you slice it, the GOP opposes him. Don't make him into too much of a villian, because the GOP has been far more consistent in supporting their big money donors than President Obama has. Politicians traditionally try to appeal to the popular vote. But with the Koch billions we end up seeing the GOP pursuing tax increases on the middle class, and tax reductions on the wealthy, that cannot be explained by any popular appeal. That's how you know that the money is talking. President Obama's course of action has usually had popular appeal to back it up. The GOP on the other hand appears to be ignoring their constituents.

Name one politician that isn't influenced by big money interest. President Obama, who got a lot of money from banks yet signed Dodd Frank into law and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also got a lot of money from Big Oil, yet he wanted to cut oil subsidies. As a result of decisions he has made, much of this money is now going to Romney, because President Obama won't play their game.

Sure Obama has spoken of pharmaceutical companies. He wants to cut their Medicare reimbursements, because "W" neglected to negotiate special Medicare rates with the pharmaceutical companies when he set up Medicare Part D. Oh yeah I just googled and nothing he has said or done actually does anything for dealing with the problems within the pharmacutacal industry. He has done a good job making Insurance companies the bad guy making an "evil profit" at 3-4% margins. But I cannot find anything about how "evil" it is for the pharmacutical companies to make a profit of 10-12% margin. When Millions of dollars of perfectly good, sealed drugs, are destroyed every month in just my state (little known fact that only those with in the industry would realize) that is a problem that could easily be solved. But no one talks about that. So you admit that he has cut medicare and yet you are ok with him since he is a Democrat. Got it. At least you are consistent in towing the party line. Oh BTW if you hate bullies you should look at how the Obama adminstration treats any press that dares to speak against him. But that would be going aginst party lines wouldn't it. Another double standard I guess. Look Sue, I am NOT trying to make Republican voters wrong here. This is about a big money interest being caught trying to rig the system. I don't see this happening on the Democratic side, or if it is happening, it isn't to the same extent. Maybe the White House might take someone aside and say, "We don't appreciate your saying that." I don't know, but I suppose that could happen. But the Koch brothers aren't the White House, OK? They shouldn't go there. It might be questionable even for the White House, so definitely the Koch brothers shouldn't be doing it. I am sure that you see this.

Koch Brothers Bullying Link That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious. You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field. And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.) Hi again Nebula. I found a link regarding what the Koch brothers have been up to lately - intimidating a lefty pundit, who is only saying what everyone else has been saying about him, but he picks on her because she is an unmarried Lesbian woman. That upsets me - I hate bullies. The link is above the quotes in this post.

Sure Obama has spoken of pharmaceutical companies. He wants to cut their Medicare reimbursements, because "W" neglected to negotiate special Medicare rates with the pharmaceutical companies when he set up Medicare Part D.

Sure it's a cut, and it's not good. We need revenue.

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious. You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field. And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.) I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.) I hate to break it to you Assured but President Obama DID cut medicare with his Obama Care legislation. I know becuase my moms entire job is to do the paper work requiered for the nursing home so they can get paid. And the hospital in my town closed down 2 floors and cut 30 nurses on Oct. 1st because of the Cuts to medicare. We really need to get past the point where just because someone says there is a problem with the system, both medicare and SS, which there is, that it means they want to fix it. The longer the Democrats villify anyone that wants to fix the system the more out of wack its going to get and the harder it is to fix. I have already resigned myself to the fact that I will never see a Dime of anything I'm paying into Medicare of SS because I don't think the governement is ever going to fix the problem that it created. He cut reimbursements to Medicare providers, rather than benefits, though. No, I am not saying it's "OK" to cut reimbursements - your mother's employer wouldn't have liked that, and I'm sorry. But cutting reimbursements will slightly erode the number of Medicare providers available, which isn't nearly as bad in the eyes of voters as cutting benefits. Also, he would be able to restore reimbursement levels if only the GOP would let him raise a little revenue, you know?

own legislation That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious. You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field. And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.) I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.) My name isn't sue. And I don't trust Obama. And there's more at stake than Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is a broke system and needs an overhaul if it is to last. And really, the Tea Party people I know are dissatisfied with all the politicians and candidates. I am sorry, Nebula! Freudian slip -- sue is my old sparring partner from Crosswalk, and it is good to see her here. But you brought up a good point, anyway. Progressives just don't have the same documented track record for letting major donors (yes, like Soros) write their own legislation through a mechanism like ALEC. If the Progressives develop an ALEC then yes, I will look just as critically at what results from it. I don't like what Conservatives and now the Tea Party have done through ALEC. If you look at it and like it, fine - that's none of my business. But I feel that it is my duty to encourage you to look at what they have done. If you didn't know about the organization, then you have a search and some reading to do. Go to Google, type American Legislative Exchange Council and hit enter. You'll have hours of reading pleasure - but it won't take you that long to get an idea of what is going on.

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious. You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field. And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.) I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

Jim Wallis Piece Sorry sue - I need to be more specific. Newt Gingrich shut the government down when he was Speaker of the House in the 1990's. There wasn't just the threat of a government shutdown - the government actually shut down! He lost his seat and the Republicans lost their majority in the House, and it ended Newt's political career. What's scary about the Tea Party, though is that they are to the right of Newt Gingrich. That's a dangerous place to be, when we see how unpopular Newt Gingrich became. So....... How do you feel about Jim Wallis? He did an interesting opinion piece in the Huffington Post recently. I've linked it above. I like the piece, but I am not sure how he has aligned himself politically.

b Hi Justin, Did you take a look at the 2 links I provided? I was just trying to alert people that they'd better understand what they are supporting, because it has the potential to make them regret having supported it, otherwise. That's all I'm saying. ALEC has been involved in a lot of things that people had better think twice about, and ALEC is also heavily funded and supported by the Koch brothers (as is the Tea Party). I encourage you to do a search on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), because I don't want to be accused of spreading propaganda. I just want people to educate themselves, instead of assuming that they can make the Tea Party whatever they want it to be. Mr. Koch has already done that, because he is a major funder of it. It would behoove us to make sure we understand something before we decide to continue to support it.

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

ALEC Link Washington Post link The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it. Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence. Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth. And what sources do you receive your information from? Please explain what you are referring to here. plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential? I normally quote from sources when I've posted in other forums, but I'm not sure that would be frowned upon here, since they seem to have their own news-gathering. But sue244 accuses me of reading "liberal" sources, but it's usually either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times that I have quoted from. Sometimes for breaking news on a new issue I will turn to "liberal" sources like Talking Points Memo (TPM) or Think Progress - but that's only because they are the first to report certain things. The followup info will always be available in a good local paper, and I really rely on the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for 75% of my information. What is your specific question, and maybe I can provide a link? Who are the Koch Brothers? What evidence do you have that the Tea Party is influenced and funded by them? What is ALEC? See the Washington Post link above the quotes in my post. Quoting from it: One of the most visible groups is Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax and anti-regulation group known for opposing smoking restrictions and for trying to cast doubt on global warming. The group launched a project called "Patients First" in June and has been conducting bus tours around the country to drum up opposition to the health-care legislation. Public records show that the group is heavily funded by the Koch Family Foundations, a major contributor to conservative causes headed by two brothers who control Koch Industries, a Kansas-based oil-and-gas conglomerate. David H. Koch serves as board chairman of the Americans for Prosperity foundation. Quoting from the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group) link: Hundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into “mainstream” policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding. I can't quote more of it without violating Terms of Service on this site, but please read the links. They should fill you in on everything you are asking about.

The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it. Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence. Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth. And what sources do you receive your information from? Please explain what you are referring to here. plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential? I normally quote from sources when I've posted in other forums, but I'm not sure that would be frowned upon here, since they seem to have their own news-gathering. But sue244 accuses me of reading "liberal" sources, but it's usually either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times that I have quoted from. Sometimes for breaking news on a new issue I will turn to "liberal" sources like Talking Points Memo (TPM) or Think Progress - but that's only because they are the first to report certain things. The followup info will always be available in a good local paper, and I really rely on the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for 75% of my information. What is your specific question, and maybe I can provide a link?

Sorry sue - I need to be more specific. Newt Gingrich shut the government down when he was Speaker of the House in the 1990's. There wasn't just the threat of a government shutdown - the government actually shut down! He lost his seat and the Republicans lost their majority in the House, and it ended Newt's political career. What's scary about the Tea Party, though is that they are to the right of Newt Gingrich. That's a dangerous place to be, when we see how unpopular Newt Gingrich became.