Biden on Taxation

[audtatious]

In a Good Morning America interview today, Biden stated that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

"We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what’s caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue. What’s caused this is the failure to have regulation so that, in fact — John talks about these CEOs getting these big bailout packages."

Ahhhhh....So wag the flag of patriotism in front of the proposed tax increases and it makes sense now. Guess those who oppose tax increases are anti-America and not patriotic

[AZhitman]

Unreal.

Let's guilt the public into feeling like they don't do their fair share, while coddling the stupid and the short-sighted AND penalizing the cautious and the long-term planners.

Brilliant, Mr. Biden. You'll make a great politician someday.

[audtatious]

This will be ignored by the mainstream just like it's being ignored here....

[Jesda]

The guy's a left-wing populist. His blue-collar followers know that he only wishes to tax Americans who he calls rich. (I call them successful.) Problem is, we all take the hit in the end in the form of reduced investment and higher costs.

I do appreciate that Biden is direct and straightforward. There is nothing subtle or sneaky about his brand of Big Government. He more or less comes out and tells us, "Hey, I'm going to take your money. If you don't cough it up, I will call you unAmerican."

I suppose from there we can take him or leave him. I suggest leaving him.

[audtatious]

Agreed

[AZhitman]

...and yet, if this were about Gov. Palin, the hand-wringers from the Left would be pouncing on this like it was another pantieless-Britney-sighting.

Where are the lefties in Biden's defense?

[telcoman]

...and yet, if this were about Gov. Palin, the hand-wringers from the Left would be pouncing on this like it was another pantieless-Britney-sighting.

Where are the lefties in Biden's defense?

Well first of all...........

oopps never mind, I just remembered!

The warning was for the part that I did not leave out. Please consider yourself still warned, but I still look forward to participation in this thread.bud

Telcoman

[rn79870]

Nevermind telco. Many of the people here think there will be tax cuts coming from Washington. They are ignoring the fact that regardless of who wins, TAXES are going UP, UP and UP. Add the bailout to this equation and they are going UP a little (lot) more.

Of course, we could follow their brilliant trickle down theory. Never mind that that only results in multi BILLION dollar bonuses to the corporate elite. But hey it's good because all the guys here tell us it is.

That's why I'm voting for Obama/Biden instead of Himbo/Bimbo on Nov 4th.

[telcoman]

Nevermind telco. Many of the people here think there will be tax cuts coming from Washington. They are ignoring the fact that regardless of who wins, TAXES are going UP, UP and UP. Add the bailout to this equation and they are going UP a little (lot) more.

Of course, we could follow their brilliant trickle down theory. Never mind that that only results in multi BILLION dollar bonuses to the corporate elite. But hey it's good because all the guys here tell us it is.

That's why I'm voting for Obama/Biden instead of Himbo/Bimbo on Nov 4th.

Why bother to comment if its only going to result in another warning?They can all agree with each other and keep this forum among themselves.They really don't want our opinion or the truth.Truth not only hurts them but drives them crazy. If the political party that I supported blew 700 billion due to a lack of regulation and oversight, I'd be upset too.

As far as Biden goes, I had a response but why bother.

Telcoman

[smockers83]

When you say taxes are going to go up, do you mean the tax rates? If so, that could be true and that could be false. Taxes could be lowered or kept level and tax revenue could increase. If you start raising taxes on an economy that is struggling and panicking, you're going to see less revenue for sure as it will put another damper on it. People will spend less and people will make less. If you put further burden on the economy, you're most likely going to reduce the overall revenue coming in.

Here's something about high incomes and taxes. If the top tier brackets have their tax rates decreased, their incomes start to rise as they have less tax liability. If their incomes rise though, they increase the taxable amount of their income. If the top tier brackets have their rates raised, their incomes fall so that they have less tax liabilities, therefore possibly reducing revenue.

So the question really is, which formula produces the most revenue? This is why I've said before that an independent, nonpartisan, 3rd party institute should be involved in drafting tax policies and budgets in order to produce maximum revenue while maintaining the economy and keeping spending under control.

[AZhitman]

Why bother to comment if its only going to result in another warning?They can all agree with each other and keep this forum among themselves.They really don't want our opinion or the truth.Truth not only hurts them but drives them crazy. If the political party that I supported blew 700 billion due to a lack of regulation and oversight, I'd be upset too.

As far as Biden goes, I had a response but why bother.

Telcoman

Awww, now Howie... Quitting is such a liberal trait... Why would you want to reinforce the stereotype?



You act as if this is a Republican-caused issue, which leads me to believe you're not very well-informed.

Explain to me why YOUR Dems KILLED the 2005 attempt co-signed by John McCain himself to rein in Wall Street?

WHY?

Explain to me WHY Dems and Reps alike made a KILLING in the market over the past decade, but just now the Left is looking to make it out to be the "greedy GOP's" fault?

Explain to me how that moron Obama can come out and say McCain doesn't "comprehend" the economy, when HE tried to pass legislation to rein in easy credit (universally agreed-upon cause of this whole mess) to begin with?

Are you freaking KIDDING me?

Go ahead and quit if you want. Because you don't HAVE any "truth" to back it up. But don't blame it on censorship or a lack of comprehension, because on this one, you're just flat-out wrong. Not an opinion - FACT.

[smockers83]

And when the party in power tried to prevent Fannie and Freddie from going bad even before the situation was dire, who thumbed their nose? Oh yeah, the Democrats. And the party that is in power of the Congress and has barely done a single thing that is worthwhile? Oh yeah, the Democrats. The GOP has its problems, too, don't get me wrong, but to place all the blame on one party just because the party has the presidency is just ridiculous. If its bad in D.C., its not a failure of a single party (unless that party has such a majority that the minority has no voice), its the failure of the government as a whole. There's more than one side in government.

[AZhitman]

Right.

Keep in mind that the TOP FOUR WEALTHIEST SENATORS are NOT Republicans.

The top 4 wealthiest senators are Democrats. Eight of the top 15 are Democrats.

The most wealthy member of the House of Representatives is California Democrat Jane Harman.

And I thought the Republicans were the "Rich, White Guys".

WHERE were these Senators when legislation was introduced? They killed it. Dead.

So, a hearty SCREW YOU to anyone who claims this is a partisan issue. Both parties benefitted from it. One party opposed corrective action and is NOW claiming to be innocent.

Hogwash.

[rn79870]

Your posts are getting more and more like wingnuts posts.

[rn79870]

And when the party in power tried to prevent Fannie and Freddie from going bad even before the situation was dire, who thumbed their nose? Oh yeah, the Democrats. And the party that is in power of the Congress and has barely done a single thing that is worthwhile? Oh yeah, the Democrats. The GOP has its problems, too, don't get me wrong, but to place all the blame on one party just because the party has the presidency is just ridiculous. If its bad in D.C., its not a failure of a single party (unless that party has such a majority that the minority has no voice), its the failure of the government as a whole. There's more than one side in government.

Cite please.

[dusred]

Why bother to comment if its only going to result in another warning?They can all agree with each other and keep this forum among themselves.They really don't want our opinion or the truth.Truth not only hurts them but drives them crazy. If the political party that I supported blew 700 billion due to a lack of regulation and oversight, I'd be upset too.

As far as Biden goes, I had a response but why bother.

Telcoman

::sniff sniff:: ::waaaaa!::

Come on, be a big boy Telco. Remember, this is just a politics forum. Both of the main Moderators here are Lib's. Just follow the rules and read your posts before you hit the post button.

/thread jack

Since we've already established that the Gov't doesn't know how the spend money I'm in agreement with the tax cuts on the rich.

The rich shouldn't be taxed any more then the poor IMO. There are lots of Gov't welfare systems that help out the poor. I'm in favor of teaching them how to fish instead of fishing for them.

[AZhitman]

Your posts are getting more and more like wingnuts posts.

To borrow a line from your fellow Lefty: "The truth hurts".

Your inability to present a factual counterpoint leads me to believe you're conceding my point.

[rn79870]

Awww, now Howie... Quitting is such a liberal trait... Why would you want to reinforce the stereotype?



You act as if this is a Republican-caused issue, which leads me to believe you're not very well-informed.

Explain to me why YOUR Dems KILLED the 2005 attempt co-signed by John McCain himself to rein in Wall Street?

Why, I think you're saying your free market economy doesn't work. Or at least, JM didn't think it would work on Wall street. Socialist Government you say?

Explain to me WHY Dems and Reps alike made a KILLING in the market over the past decade, but just now the Left is looking to make it out to be the "greedy GOP's" fault?

A killing in the market wasn't the problem.

Explain to me how that moron Obama can come out and say McCain doesn't "comprehend" the economy, when HE tried to pass legislation to rein in easy credit (universally agreed-upon cause of this whole mess) to begin with?

It's really easy to say. Because the economy is "fundamentally strong." Now, do the McCain twist on what he really meant by that.

Are you freaking KIDDING me?

Nope, he really said that.

Go ahead and quit if you want. Because you don't HAVE any "truth" to back it up. But don't blame it on censorship or a lack of comprehension, because on this one, you're just flat-out wrong. Not an opinion - FACT.

I suppose that insurance company you and I now own 80 percent of isn't proof of anything being wrong with your free market economy either. Yes, we are a Socialist/Capitalist society and we're headed deeper into the socialist part - with the support of both the blue and the red.

[96Qowner]

Cite please.

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-2005/

[smockers83]

Cite please.

On which part? Do I really need to cite the "Do Nothing Congress" and the 9% approval rating or whatever ungodly low number it is now? That should be common knowledge now, therefore it really shouldn't need a citation.

Or the Fannie/Freddie thing? Surprised you missed this one.zer...annie

Or are you looking for this kind of citation?

And when the party in power tried to prevent Fannie and Freddie from going bad even before the situation was dire, who thumbed their nose? Oh yeah, the Democrats. And the party that is in power of the Congress and has barely done a single thing that is worthwhile? Oh yeah, the Democrats. The GOP has its problems, too, don't get me wrong, but to place all the blame on one party just because the party has the presidency is just ridiculous. If its bad in D.C., its not a failure of a single party (unless that party has such a majority that the minority has no voice), its the failure of the government as a whole. There's more than one side in government.

--Eric Smock's brain full of accumulated knowledge

[rn79870]

Yes, cites on all of that.

[AZhitman]

Blah blah blah point missed blah blah blah

Still doesn't explain why BO is pointing fingers at everyone but himself. How convenient.

At least J-Mac can point to 2005 and say, "Hey - We tried."

And this has nothing to do with "free market" or "capitalism" and everything to do with easy credit and predatory lending run amok.

Then again, explaining that to someone who can't comprehend the obvious contradiction ol' Barack has gotten himself into might just be "above my pay grade".

[rn79870]

http://hotair.com/archives/200...-2005/

Sorry 96, that's a rightist coloring book. Don't buy anything they say. Bring me something from HuffPost or Kos, or even the NYT.

[rn79870]

At least J-Mac can point to 2005 and say, "Hey - We tried."

Oh, Sen. Obama did exactly what to oppose that? (Be careful going there.)

Wait, Rick Davis is a McCain advisor, and he's got a clean record doesn't he. (Be careful going there.)

Greg, admit it, you want to come over to this side, and I want you to know we'll welcome you. (We've got beer and pretzels.) It will be so much easier on you not having to defend Sen. McGaffe.

[AZhitman]

Oh, Sen. Obama did exactly what to oppose that? (Be careful going there.)

Not a thing.

He was a freshman Senator, busy writing a book and requesting earmarks for the hospital where his wife worked.

If you haven't noticed by now, "careful" is not one of my outstanding traits.

[audtatious]

Sorry 96, that's a rightist coloring book. Don't buy anything they say. Bring me something from HuffPost or Kos, or even the NYT.

Like HuffPost, Kos or NYT are honest? You're kidding, right?

[96Qowner]

Sorry 96, that's a rightist coloring book. Don't buy anything they say.Bring me something from HuffPost or Kos, or even the NYT.

So, Bob, you weren't able to read McCain's actual words in his actual speech, because you don't approve of the person who quoted him? You weren't able to read the actual words in the actual interview because it was quoted by someone you don't approve of?

That's a pathetically weak objection, sorry. That's the same as saying that because you don't approve of someone who posts here, you can ignore the substance of anyone he quotes. That's hardly a conversation or a debate. That's just closing your eyes tightly and humming to yourself.

I've cited Huffingtonpost before, not because I agree with their editorializing, but because there were valid facts presented.

People who are actually looking for the truth find it wherever it resides.

[rn79870]

People who are actually looking for the truth find it wherever it resides.

Actually, 96, I agree with you completely about the validity in many different sources, even some of the righty-tighty ones. I was just returning a little of the hypocrisy that is shoveled so freely here.

Case in point...

Like HuffPost, Kos or NYT are honest? You're kidding, right?

I guess I forgot to mention Newsweek, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow too. The list is just too long to keep it all straight.

[96Qowner]

Awright, Bob!

We're in full agreement this time.

[rn79870]

Not a thing.

He was a freshman Senator, busy writing a book and requesting earmarks for the hospital where his wife worked.

If you haven't noticed by now, "careful" is not one of my outstanding traits.

So, you're saying JM is for bigger government and socialist like programs? Sort of sounds like that doesn't it?

I'm telling you Greg, inside you beats a liberal heart of gold.