Sen. Al Franken

[Meirionnydd]

Only problem is that you liberals are so hell bent on penalizing the rich to pay for all the goodies that you ignore the facts

Oh, so you're one of those people who think the rich should somehow pay less in taxes?

Contrary to popular belief, most rich people didn't get to where they were because they were nice people. In fact, some Psychological disorders (namely personality disorders, which make people unpredicatable assholes) are more prevalent among CEO's and other high status people, than they are among convicted felons.

Politicians too, are quite wealthy. Seeing them enact tax cuts for them and their best buddies is the ultimate conflict of interest. Something that, isn't fair.

Under the Bush tax cuts, a middle income family can only expect to save only $100 a year. Opposed to the wealthy, who could save up $24,000 per year. The rich need to pay their share. Me, being from a lower-middle class family, am really perplexed to see why the wealthy bitch about higher taxes, when they earn about 20x the amount my parents do.

Spoken like a died in the wool liberal. :clap
Only problem is that you liberals are so hell bent on penalizing the rich to pay for all the goodies that you ignore the facts. Revenue has always increased when there were tax cuts. Sorry, I know the truth hurts.

Ugh. I really hate that 'liberal' label. What have I said to indicate that i'm a liberal? Was it because I implied that Reagan's economic polices sucked?

Anyway, using that term really doesn't advance the debate, and i'm really perplexed why so many right-leaning people in the United States use it to deride other people's thoughts and ideas.

In contrast that term is seldom used in Australia, probably because our conservative party is actually called the 'The Liberal Party of Australia'. Anyway, since that has nothing with the debate, i'll move on...

The cumulative effect of Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a net loss of government revenue over his term.

And your claim about revenue always increasing following tax cuts is by no means a slam dunk. Tax cuts in 1981 saw a 10% decrease in tax recepits the following year. Also, most people that claim the 'reducing taxes creates more revenue' argument don't take into consideration underlying economic factors that may cause revenue to increase, correlation does not always imply causation.

Reagan was given promises about cutting spending which congress backed out on. And yeah he increased the military budget. Since when is fortifying our military to make sure we are capable of protecting ourself a bad thing?

It becomes a bad thing when you purge the budgets of social programs to help pay for it.

yeah baby, spend, spend, spend. You liberals are so in bed with this guy you do not even know what a stimulus package is. It is supposed to be something that provides an immediate boost to the economy. All his plan is just an infusion of money into liberal programs with it costing us a massive amount of money with no immediate impact. That makes anything done in the past that you claim damaged the country pale in comparisom. We could shut off the stimulus plan right now and do our kids and grand kids a favor because the plan did not do anything yet and now that things are starting to stabize the plan will do nothing but ratchet up inflation. This is voodoo economics at its best and coming from the smartest man on earth we were told over and over again.

Eww. Okay, two things.

1.) I'm not a big fan of Obama
2.) I never said I supported the stimulus package, I just said that something beneficial may come out of it. Unlike Bush for example, who raked up the national debt up to almost 7 trillion, with nearly nothing to show for it.

 

[Alien Allen]

Oh, so you're one of those people who think the rich should somehow pay less in taxes?

Another falacy. The rich pay by far the greatest amount of taxes in the US.

Contrary to popular belief, most rich people didn't get to where they were because they were nice people. In fact, some Psychological disorders (namely personality disorders, which make people unpredicatable assholes) are more prevalent among CEO's and other high status people, than they are among convicted felons.

Have any data to support that? Last I looked the jails were not overwhelmed with rich people. Even with better lawyers they can get their still would not be anywhere near the numbers to support your assertion.

Politicians too, are quite wealthy. Seeing them enact tax cuts for them and their best buddies is the ultimate conflict of interest. Something that, isn't fair.

yes it pays to get into politics. One reason I support the idea of federally funded elections.

Under the Bush tax cuts, a middle income family can only expect to save only $100 a year. Opposed to the wealthy, who could save up $24,000 per year. The rich need to pay their share. Me, being from a lower-middle class family, am really perplexed to see why the wealthy bitch about higher taxes, when they earn about 20x the amount my parents do.

Again an argument that is silly. If there is an across the board tax cut of a given percentage the wealthy get to keep more of their money. Percentage wise there is no difference. Using the same logic then if taxes are raises the rich should only pay the $100 more.

Ugh. I really hate that 'liberal' label. What have I said to indicate that i'm a liberal? Was it because I implied that Reagan's economic polices sucked?

well if you were American you would be called a liberal. And don't feel bad. Most of them are upset at being called that too.

Anyway, using that term really doesn't advance the debate, and i'm really perplexed why so many right-leaning people in the United States use it to deride other people's thoughts and ideas.

I don't believe the right are the only ones to criticize other peoples thoughts.

In contrast that term is seldom used in Australia, probably because our conservative party is actually called the 'The Liberal Party of Australia'. Anyway, since that has nothing with the debate, i'll move on...

I had a similar discussion with a Canadian. He says he is not a liberal but if he lived here he would clearly be one. Again sorry if the label is not to your liking but as I am an American I used it for anybody with liberal US thoughts and ideas.

The cumulative effect of Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a net loss of government revenue over his term.

And your claim about revenue always increasing following tax cuts is by no means a slam dunk. Tax cuts in 1981 saw a 10% decrease in tax recepits the following year. Also, most people that claim the 'reducing taxes creates more revenue' argument don't take into consideration underlying economic factors that may cause revenue to increase, correlation does not always imply causation.

Bull shit. You need to read some better fables.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

It becomes a bad thing when you purge the budgets of social programs to help pay for it.

more bullshit. show me when any programs were purged. You are buying into the same liberal crap where a baseline budget is lowered. They claim a programs budget was slashed when in fact the programs got more money. They just did not get as much as the original baseline projected.

Eww. Okay, two things.

1.) I'm not a big fan of Obama
2.) I never said I supported the stimulus package, I just said that something beneficial may come out of it. Unlike Bush for example, who raked up the national debt up to almost 7 trillion, with nearly nothing to show for it.

Bush was an idiot. He was no conservative and the liberals should be happy as he spent like a liberal. And it was not all spent on war. He spent on prescription coverage for the retired along with other crap. And by the way Obama will have made Bushes deficits look like petty cash when all is said and done. In the stimulus alone it will cost over 11 trillion unless some of it is eliminated. There is no defending Obama if anybody cares about the US and what the impact of these bull shit spending priorities of his and his statists in congress.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Another falacy. The rich pay by far the greatest amount of taxes in the US.

As they should.

Have any data to support that? Last I looked the jails were not overwhelmed with rich people. Even with better lawyers they can get their still would not be anywhere near the numbers to support your assertion.

Hah, it's funny you say that. The psychologists in concluding the experiment said 'Criminals are the unsuccessful psychopaths, businessmen are the successful ones'.

Disordered personalities at work - Psychology, Crime & Law

Basically, certain personality disorders (Histrionic personality disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive) were more common in the sample of executives than the sample of inmates sampled at Broodmoor hospital. I'm not saying that these people are criminals or will go out and commit crime. But their moral judgement and character certainly needs to be questioned.

yes it pays to get into politics. One reason I support the idea of federally funded elections.

Yes, me too.

Again an argument that is silly. If there is an across the board tax cut of a given percentage the wealthy get to keep more of their money. Percentage wise there is no difference. Using the same logic then if taxes are raises the rich should only pay the $100 more.

This may put it into further perspective.

Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that two-thirds of the 2003 tax cut will accrue to the richest 10% of taxpayers. By 2006, the increased child credit will be phased out and nine out of ten taxpayers will find their taxes cut by less than $100. The top 1%, in contrast, will save an average $24,000 annually over the next four years, thanks to the 2003 cut alone.

ask dr. dollar | Dollars & Sense

well if you were American you would be called a liberal. And don't feel bad. Most of them are upset at being called that too.

I don't believe the right are the only ones to criticize other peoples thoughts.

I had a similar discussion with a Canadian. He says he is not a liberal but if he lived here he would clearly be one. Again sorry if the label is not to your liking but as I am an American I used it for anybody with liberal US thoughts and ideas.

Haha, fair enough. I'm not going to shy away from the 'liberal' label, as it is probably fitting. I do find it slightly confusing though, as in Australian politics, such labels are seldom used. Both major parties are quite moderate, with the conseravtives being a major supporter of the universal health care system, and the labor party increasing military spending (ironically, more than the conservative party ever had).

Labels don't exactly work if you're one the right and supporting a program characterised as 'left', and vise-versa.

Also, I find that the left in the United States is becoming more aggressive in their stance since Obama has come to power, too bad for them Obama isn't their candidate - I don't think Obama is liberal, the last 'liberal' president was LBJ, in my opinion.

Bull shit. You need to read some better fables.

The link seems to be broken, but it claims that the combined effect of Reagan's tax policies culminated in a 1% drop in government revenue.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

Also, the amounts you quoted haven't been adjusted for inflation. Check it out here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf#page=29

And remember, underlying economic factors come into play.

more bullshit. show me when any programs were purged. You are buying into the same liberal crap where a baseline budget is lowered. They claim a programs budget was slashed when in fact the programs got more money. They just did not get as much as the original baseline projected.

REAGAN INSISTS BUDGET CUTS ARE WAY TO REDUCE DEFICIT - New York Times

I know the article doesn't specifically mention what programs had their budget slashed. I just remember reading in another article about what federal programs were cut, Medicare and the EPA among them.

Bush was an idiot. He was no conservative and the liberals should be happy as he spent like a liberal. And it was not all spent on war. He spent on prescription coverage for the retired along with other crap. And by the way Obama will have made Bushes deficits look like petty cash when all is said and done. In the stimulus alone it will cost over 11 trillion unless some of it is eliminated. There is no defending Obama if anybody cares about the US and what the impact of these bull shit spending priorities of his and his statists in congress.

I for one am hoping that the stimulus will eventually help the economy recover. However, 11 trillion is ALOT of money. Personally, I think of it as necessary, but I might have a different attitude if it was MY money being spent, so I can understand the apprehension that Americans express over the issue. Coupled with that and their lack of faith in the Federal government.

 

[Minor Axis]

Can you elaborate?

To make this short, Coleman was a Democrat who saw an opportunity for career advancement by switching to Republican. In the State of Minnesota, all the Democrat players were all ready in place for the next several years. Since switching parties Coleman follows the Republican play book- blind support for corporations, maximize profits, enrich leadership and shaft labor. In addition he followed Bush to war because I guess it seemed like the Republican Party thing to do. Franken is sympathetic to the working class and is/was against the war.

 

[Tangerine]

To make this short, Coleman was a Democrat who saw an opportunity for career advancement by switching to Republican. In the State of Minnesota, all the Democrat players were all ready in place for the next several years. Since switching parties Coleman follows the Republican play book- blind support for corporations, maximize profits, enrich leadership and shaft labor. In addition he followed Bush to war. Franken is sympathetic to the working class and is/was against the war.

Anyone who thinks that organized labor equates to sympathy for the working class is delusional.

 

[Minor Axis]

Anyone who thinks that organized labor equates to sympathy for the working class is delusional.

No more so than those who think the corporate board room deservers to live like kings among the paupers... the system has to work for everyone, not just those in a position to take advantage of others.

 

[Alien Allen]

http://www.offtopicz.net/members/meirionnydd/Meirionnyd

You are really making it a stretch when you start using adjusted for inflation as a qualifier for tax revenue increasing. The facts remain that cutting taxes has raised revenue. It makes no sense to the liberal black and white world where for every drop in taxes there must be a drop in revenue. But it works is because the economy gets stimulated.

But then class envy has always been part and parcel of the liberal agenda.

 

[Tim]

Hell, we should go back to the tax rates of the 50's, you know, when Americans actually had pride in their country and had no problem giving back to a country that gave them so much...

 

[Tangerine]

No more so than those who think the corporate board room deservers to live like kings among the paupers... the system has to work for everyone, not just those in a position to take advantage of others.

Well I certainly don't think that, but the implication that by raising the wages of workers that executives will somehow receive LESS money is so far off base it's laughable. Anyone who thinks that lacks even the most basic understanding of how a business P&L works.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hell, we should go back to the tax rates of the 50's, you know, when Americans actually had pride in their country and had no problem giving back to a country that gave them so much...

You would think from the shrieks coming from the balcony on the left that the rich have suddenly stopped paying taxes. With the lowered rates also came the elimination of a lot of write offs. I think if you look at the dollars paid by the rich did not change much when the rates lowered. It looked better to show high rates back in the day even though they were offset but the write offs. Unless one was too stupid to know where to put their money to get the write offs. And those who are that wealthy did not get there by being stupid for the most part and would have advisers telling them where to invest.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well I certainly don't think that, but the implication that by raising the wages of workers that executives will somehow receive LESS money is so far off base it's laughable. Anyone who thinks that lacks even the most basic understanding of how a business P&L works.

Bub, the issue is morality. Just because business works that way does it mean it's right? Like when management asks labor to take 40% paycuts because the company is in distress while they give themselves 40% bonuses. I'm sure there is a group here who cheer loudly for such BS.

 

[Tangerine]

Bub, the issue is morality. Just because business works that way does it mean it's right? Like when management asks labor to take 40% paycuts because the company is in distress while they give themselves 40% bonuses. I'm sure there is a group here who cheer loudly for such BS.

Yeah, because that happens ALL THE TIME in business. Care to cite some examples?

 

[Minor Axis]

Yeah, because that happens ALL THE TIME in business. Care to cite some examples?

I would cite the example I am aware of first hand but I don't care to reveal my employer for several, maybe even obvious reasons.

I don't know what your background is but you need to study up on current corporate ethics. Or maybe you are fully aware of current corporate ethics and like helping with the deception. I'm not saying that all corporations are bad. I'm saying that a significant percentage of large corporations are more than willing to enrich the top leadership while diminishing the value of their rank and file employees, most likely because it might cost someone the ability to buy their 3rd mansion on Maui. People today seem more than willing to screw each other over.

Where bankruptcy used to be a mark of shame, it's now considered a savvy management device and an excellent method of disenfranchising your employees who don't reside in the management food chain. An easy example (not of bankruptcy) is Walmart, the biggest most profitable corporation I know of who has the largest percentage of their workers on state health programs because it would reduce their huge profits. And the number one force behind sending good paying U.S. jobs overseas. While I won't go so far as saying they should burn in hell for this, I will say in the applicable individual's post life evaluation, it's going to be a big fat minus on their score card.

 

[Accountable]

Well, get ready to start marking minuses, then, because it will be the standard practice if Obama gets his way.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well, get ready to start marking minuses, then, because it will be the standard practice if Obama gets his way.

So it's a minus when you pay taxes to a program that helps someone else? Regardless, apples and oranges when it comes to greedy bastard executives, two completely different discussions.

 

[Accountable]

I would cite the example I am aware of first hand but I don't care to reveal my employer for several, maybe even obvious reasons.

I don't know what your background is but you need to study up on current corporate ethics. Or maybe you are fully aware of current corporate ethics and like helping with the deception. I'm not saying that all corporations are bad. I'm saying that a significant percentage of large corporations are more than willing to enrich the top leadership while diminishing the value of their rank and file employees, most likely because it might cost someone the ability to buy their 3rd mansion on Maui. People today seem more than willing to screw each other over.

Where bankruptcy used to be a mark of shame, it's now considered a savvy management device and an excellent method of disenfranchising your employees who don't reside in the management food chain. An easy example (not of bankruptcy) is Walmart, the biggest most profitable corporation I know of who has the largest percentage of their workers on state health programs because it would reduce their huge profits. And the number one force behind sending good paying U.S. jobs overseas. While I won't go so far as saying they should burn in hell for this, I will say in the applicable individual's post life evaluation, it's going to be a big fat minus on their score card.

Well, get ready to start marking minuses, then, because it will be the standard practice if Obama gets his way.

So it's a minus when you pay taxes to a program that helps someone else? Regardless, apples and oranges when it comes to greedy bastard executives, two completely different discussions.

You defined what the minus means in this context. :wtf:

 

[Minor Axis]

You defined what the minus means in this context. :wtf:

I'm talking about corporate leadership lacking morals and taking advantage of their employees, being judged in heaven with minuses and you come back with with under Obama there will be lots of minuses awarded? Maybe I assumed you were talking about the same thing I was?

 

[Alien Allen]

Works a bit against business also at times when you have union people getting away with being lazy. The crap my wife used to witness at the grocery store was absurd.

I think you paint a broad brush Minor when condemning business. Most business treat their employees fair. But I also paint a broad brush when discussing union workers so maybe it evens out.

 

[Accountable]

I'm talking about corporate leadership lacking morals and taking advantage of their employees, being judged in heaven with minuses and you come back with with under Obama there will be lots of minuses awarded? Maybe I assumed you were talking about the same thing I was?

Wal-mart's only taking advantage of government handouts, as they are legally required to do in their quest for maximum profit for their stockholders. If Obama's plans come to fruition, there will be ever more government handouts to take advantage of. More and more corporations will drop their services so that their employees will have to jump onto the Obama gravy train.

If you condemn Wal-mart now, you will be condemning more corporations soon.

 

[Minor Axis]

Wal-mart's only taking advantage of government handouts, as they are legally required to do in their quest for maximum profit for their stockholders. If Obama's plans come to fruition, there will be ever more government handouts to take advantage of. More and more corporations will drop their services so that their employees will have to jump onto the Obama gravy train.

If you condemn Wal-mart now, you will be condemning more corporations soon.

Regarding health insurance if we go public option and corporate taxes are raised to make up for those corporations bailing on their own plans, then it should be a wash.