GOP All the Sudden Wants to Raise Taxes: On the Poor and Middle Class

Is it me or am I beginning to see a pattern and trend going on here?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

 

Classic.

Every single Tea Party candidate would not accept even a 10-1 spending cut to tax increase compromise to balance the budget.

But a tax cut that benefits the poorer instead of the richer is not a "net positive."

They have made their priority and objective crystal clear. If anyone had any doubt.

 

You people want SS/Medicare/Medicaid untouched right? Well then that means all Americans need to pay for it, including the poor. The poor do not have the right to ask the rich to foot the bill for their own retirement funds.

The rich ARE NOT going to be the only ones who have to pay more taxes. Everyone is. You know this as well as I do.

 

Yes, the Tea Party is nothing more than the foot soldiers for the rich. They don't represent what is best for the country at all.

"You people" eh? Well the poor and Middle Class is not asking the rich to pay for social security. The poor and the Middle Class have already paid for it, it's just that the politicians have raided those funds, politicians whose political campaigns were funded by "you people," the rich.

 

Sounds good. But the super rich do not effectively pay it as a % of their income, and I don't think trust fund babies pay it at all.

Fine with me.

 

All is fair in love and war. Stop complaining.

 

I never thought of it in terms of "love and war." We're (we as in Americans) supposed to be a united, not a divided nation. Especially in these times, we should be sticking together as a nation. And here is another interesting article again:

http://news.yahoo.com/usa-becomes-food-stamp-nation-sustainable-160645036.html

And according to the article, the republicans are trying to make cuts on food stamps now. Again, I notice this pattern. Perhaps Albert was on to something when he said "All is fair in love and war."

 

Here is a video I found:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4920252n

It talks about Class Warfare in the United States.

 

American unity ended in 2004 for me. It was then that the American left made common cause with the Iraqi Insurgents fighting American soldiers for political purposes. Michael Moore delivered the euology at the funeral of American unity and solidarity.

"...Was it all a dream, those nightmare years of 2004-7?...

This was the period in which Michael Moore called for US defeat in Iraq and dubbed the Islamists who were killing our own soldiers “Minutemen.” Indeed, in April 2004, he wrote on his website: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win….I oppose the UN or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle…the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” I think in the old days such sentiments of calling for the deaths of one’s countrymen were called “treasonous.” Yet, such ranting in and of itself was not surprising given Moore’s ideology and crassness. But what was inexplicable was the Democratic Party’s reaction to his mythodrama, Fahrenheit 9/11, and his royal presence at the Democratic convention of 2004, when all of the above was well known...."
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021511.html

Those were the years when America died for me because I saw my fellow Americans make common cause against me with the enemy seeking to kill American soldiers on the battlefield. Michael Moore and the American left gave aid and comfort to the enemy for the purpose of achieving political advantage here at home.

In doing so they killed the country for me as I had known it. And they established a new precedent permitting foreign policy crises to be used for domestic political advantage. The American left validated this precedent, and once established a precedent remains in effect.

So let's have no more talk about the phantom of American unity. That concept died in 2004 along the Eurphrates and Tigris.

 

All is fair in love and war. Stop complaining.

 

Those words were said by a very wise man.

 

And another wise man said the supreme art of war is to win without fighting.

 

Then write your Democratic congressmen and tell them to vote on the Paul Ryan plan that raise revenues on everyone.

 

That is not the Paul Ryan plan.

But I have written my reps urging them to compromise with spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficits.

 

Really? The Ryan plan didn't have the rich paying 25% throughout the year and NOT getting a refund that knocks it down to 17% like with Obama's income? Ryans plan also didn't cut spending by the government on things the average American person could afford to save for themselves AND have a means test to see how much you get? That seems like spending AND revenue to reduce the deficit. But since it was done by a GOP person, you will have none of that. Bet if Obama had come out with that plan (or any plan) you would have been all over his nuts because he offered a "compromise".

 

The Republican Party’s top budget chief on Tuesday unveiled a 10-year, $40 trillion budget plan that would dramatically shrink the size of the federal government over the next decade by eliminating nearly $6 trillion in spending while cutting $4 trillion from revenue by keeping all the Bush-era tax cuts for the next 10 years.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...Plan-Slashes-Spending-Lowers-Taxes.aspx#page1

 

Americans can't really pay taxes if they are unemployed...

 

That doesn't seem to be stopping the republicans, even with the high unemployment rate.

 

Dude, the way it is now, people pay what ever their tax braket is thrughout the year. From 10% to 35%. When they file their taxes, their taxed bracket turns from 10% to -10%, and from 35% to 17% or loess depending on what loopholes you use. Like Obama making $1 mil last year and yet he only pays 17% in taxes off his income. Ryan's plan had the top paying 25% thrughout the year and at the time of tax day came, they stayed at 25% because there was no more loopholes or credits. This would mean Obama would have paid $250,000 in taxes instead of only $170,000.

If you look at the end of year numbers, the revenue was higher under Ryans plan (because even the poor would pay taxes) then it is under the current swiss chess laced tax code.

 

So you're claiming that Ryan's plan which cuts the tax rate on the richest by 1/3 contains not loopholes or deductions?

I find it hard to believe, and harder to believe that any tax plan by any Tea Party Republican would actually increase taxes the rich pay. That would go against their number one priority and objective.

 

Then your view of what "the number one priority and objective" of the Republican Party is, is simply wrong.

The whole idea of Republican taxes is everyone pays less, but more people pay. EVERYONE, no matter how poor, should pay some percentage of their income to income taxes.

 

You're simply wrong.

The Republican Tea party proves their number one priority is keeping the rich rich with every action they take and thing they say.

Including the latest round, where after (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about what a big problem the deficits are, every single Republican/Tea Party candidate affirmed they would not agree to even a 10-1 spending cut to tax increase compromise because it meant the richest would have to pay bit more in taxes.

No, you're simply wrong. The Republican/Tea Party has made its priority crystal clear.

 

The Right of the Rich to keep the majority of their earnings, however accrued is a valid right under our Constitution.

If you think that Private Property rights when it comes to the accrual of wealth isn't strict enough, you'll need a Constitutional Amendment to do anything substantive about it.

 

Thank you for proving my post.

 

They keep a vast majority of their wealth. They effecctively pay something like 17% or so.