Chicken Little in Congress

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

   Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC)
   
   "The worst part of it would be that if you indeed confiscated all the earnings of every single American making $100,000 or more per year... it not plug the ginormous hole left be liberal overspending.."
   
   Scarey and comletely false. BTW, I found the quote online under this title
   
   "Taxing those at $100,000 and up at 100% would not get us out of this year’s deficit"
   
   Which is how weholdthesetruths plugged this story. So it's being actively promoted as a scare tactic.  Lets look at the numbers.
   
   The projected defcit 2011 -1.65 Trillion
   (source Wall Street Journal)
   
   Total personal Income US -12.5 Trillion
   (source US Department of Labor 2010)
   
   Percent of aggregate income top 5% of personal income. -21.7%
   (source -US Census Bureau 2010)
   
   Do the math. The richest 5% of Americans 'earned'  $2.7 Trillion in 2010. (21.7% of the total personal income, 12.5 Trillion.) The projected deficit is 1.65 trillion, or. roughly half the income of the richest 5%.
   
   This one quote by a minor Chicken Little in the US House of Representatives would be unimportant except that it's typical of a string of lies, distortions and half-truths being pumped out by republicans to panic voters into permanently lower taxes for the rich. Any thinking person can see that lowering taxes can't possibly increase revenue or lower the debt. But that's what's being sold with huge ad campaigns. (Seen the futuristic one where the Chinese discuss the demise of America?  Ask yourself - Who PAID for that ad?)
   
   The richest people in America are betting that you are a gullible fool. With outright lies and slick adds they are asking you to commit suicide by election.
   
   Do yourself a favor and check the facts.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, please do.    The total taxable income in the US is nowhere near what you state it is.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I went to statistics from US Department of Labor web site.
         
         You consulted your belly button.
         
         What will people believe?

         replyreport
   2. 62

      logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Both parties use the scare tactic when it suits them.  If fact you have done it yourself.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         weholdthesetruthsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You call yourself "logic, commonsense" and can't point his lack, thereof?   
         
         Think about this.   The entire federal budget of 3.6 or 3.8 or whatever size it is depending on the hour of whatever day your statistic comes from, is criticized for being ALMOST 25% of GDP.   Yet, this brainiac claims that just all our paychecks ALONE add up to 12.6 trillion. 
         
         There's not a snowball's chance in the h e double hockeysticks that our combined paychecks are anywhere NEAR the total GDP.
         
         Logic, anyone?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Maembeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Explain your "logic" please.  Why is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics incorrect?  What do the random facts you just stated have to do with anything?  Do you know even know what GDP is?

            replyreport
   3. 61

      sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You wrote, " Any thinking person can see that lowering taxes can't possibly increase revenue or lower the debt."
      
      Except that we have a history. Every time it has been done the tax revenues have gone up. Every time.
      
      Lowering the debt will occur of, and only if, we return to a constitutionally-based limited government.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's obviously false. It's what the elder President Bush called "voodoo economics". It's also why the bulk of our national debt has been racked up under GOP presidents.
         
         Look at what happened under Ronnie Raygun, the first to propagate that nonsense - the national debt went up 20.6%.
         
         Want facts?
         
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d … tial_terms

         replyreport
         1. 61

            sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Doug, Despite your statements it is true. JFK's administration reduced the tax rates. And the economy grew.  Reagan did the same and the tax revenues almost doubled.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            \Hi Doug, look at this only if you have the courage to actually digest it and make it your own.
            
            http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmaster … e-revenue/

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Doug Hughesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Your source cited a 'study' by the Heritage Foundation. Sorry. HF is a pure propaganda outlet. My source cites real facts.
               
               The deficit went up...
               
               1.7 Trillion under Reagan
               1.4 Trillion under the first Bush
               
               It went DOWN...
               
               1.6 Trillion under Clinton with higher taxes.
               
               The deficit soared under Shrubbie -
               
               4.63 TRILLION under Bush
               
               With all due respect...
               ARE YOU INSANE?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Doug,
                  
                  I think we shall have to agree to disagree. We are talking about two different things. I am speaking of the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. There is an inverse relationship. As tax rates diminish the tax revenues go up.
                  
                  You refer to debt. The party in power has control over that. So for Reagain it was the democrats who spent way more than we collected.

                  replyreport
2. 73

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Corporate America is sitting on 2 trillion dollars. They got their tax cut. They could care LESS about jobs.
   
   After all, the poor things were so put-upon that WE had to PAY them to take jobs out of America! (tax breaks...big surprise,right?)
   Can't you just feel their pain?
   
   If they cared at all about the deficit, why did they add to it???
   Can Trump ask them that? Oh right, I forgot...he's a Birther. Never mind.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You know those fat cats!! God damn, I hate them so much!!
      
      The other day, one said "crap, i have to hire more people because my business is getting larger!!"
      
      I ACTUALLY saw a "help wanted" sign outside my local MULTI-BILLION INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EVIL SATANIC McDonald's.
      
      Those bastards wanted to hire ME?!!? GOD DAMMIT I HATE THEM!!! What the hell is this "$7.50 an hour" crap!! YOU'RE TRILLIONAIRES!!! I DEMAND at LEAST $50,000 / hour because YOU can afford it!
      
      Who cares if that would make burgers cost $70 and put you out of business -- you're RICH, so no one cares!! GOD DAMMIT I HATE YOU!!!
      
      Then you'd be POOR!! ONE OF US!! ... and...
      
      ... and i guess I'd have to stop hating you...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, who'd have thought it!
         Macdonalds only sell less than one burger an hour!!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I wanted to comment, but I actually don't understand what you're trying to argue with that comment.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well, your argument that paying burger flippers a living wage would mean that burgers would cost $70.
               It's only a rough estimate, it might be slightly more than one burger an hour, or it might be a bit less, but if paying $50 an hour is going to bump up the price to $70 a  burger then you can only be looking at very very low sales.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  it was $50,000 /hour.
                  
                  And, yes, the point was that with higher prices, demand can decrease to the point of 0.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Too true, but until that price is actually reached higher wages + higher prices will = higher profits.
                     
                     Obviously selling burgers for $70 a throw would not sell many at all but if increasing wages a bit meant a more dedicated and harder working staff a price increase would probably not be necessary at all.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        weholdthesetruthsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL!    I so wish you'd start a service business, a low profit, low skill, service business.    And then, keep it going a while, so that when you make some money, we can verbally abuse you for your greed and maltreatment of your employees, etc, etc.    True?  Who the hell cares?   You'd be a businessman and we have an eternal right to moralize and criticize and condemn you for anything we want to make up about you.

                        replyreport
      2. 61

         sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I happen to like love. And now I like you too. This was very funny.
         
         Thank you.

         replyreport
3. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 years ago

   One of the Teabagger troll suggested I just 'snipe' at people I disagree with.
   
   I snipe at lies and the ammo is truth. Backed by hard facts. This is one example.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      you've never known truth, fact, nor have you ever spoken a civil word.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      sn53Anonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Doug,
      
      You wrote,  "One of the Teabagger troll suggested I just 'snipe' at people I disagree with."
      
      Okay. You did a few times. I have forgiven you. LOL. Friends?

      replyreport