This is a cool article that compares Romney's budget and Obama's budget. Notice that Romney hikes taxes on the tax earners that make the least money, and cuts taxes drastically on the wealthiest of all Americans. Also it's worth noting that helping to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy he will cut medicare. So he's heaping a bigger burden on senior citizens and the working poor and lower middle class to give the wealthy a break. The guys a real ass.
Is there some law that I am unaware of that to be a Republican you must support giving the largest share of the tax cuts to the rich and rail that "it's a spending problem" while refusing to cut defense spending?
Yes, there is. And they have to go on record with much crazier stuff than that if they want to be elected as Republicans.
Thanks for that, FB, but good luck getting any of the far-right, fundamentalist mainliners here to condemn Romney's budget "plan," unless they're saying it doesn't go far enough. There seems to be no limit to the largess the rulers of the Republican Party are willing to give the wealthiest Americans, and their conjoined twin, Corporate America. Those in the Middle Class who support them can only be described as masochistic, and seemingly unaware of that fact. Bizarre.
Can't address the substance so you discount it because of the source. Par for the course for your kind.
So, when he talks about tax rates, are these proposed tax rates comparable to what the IRS currently defines tax rates as? For example, the current 'low' tax rate is 10% and the 'high' is 35%. If that is the case, then Romney is significantly lowering the 'low' tax rate (albeit still higher than Obama). Again, assuming that is the case, it looks like Romney is lowering the low tax rate a bit over 60% and lowering the high tax rate around 26%. Is that correct, or am I misundertanding how the author is referring to tax rates?
I believe the word rate is being used here as "actual percentage of income paid to federal income tax", and not the "marginal rate" at which that taxpayer's top dollar made is taxed. In the case of the poor, their AGI is lowered greatly by the standard (or itemized) deductions, the personal exemption, dependent exemptions, etc. Those reductions result in a much greater percentage savings to someone earning , say, $15 thousand than to someone who earns $200 thousand.
If that is the case, do you have any idea what the current numbers are? Based on IRS data (as of 2009), it looks like the top 10% pay an average tax rate of 18% of their AGI (top 1% around 24%) while the bottom 50% (I don't see any data with more detail than that) paid around 1.85%.
Yes, it's best to ignore FACTS if those facts come from the pen of a liberal. A liberal who is a credible journalist and working for a credible newspaper. It's better to get your facts from places like fox news that shows an unemployment graph which puts 8.6 % unemployment at higher than 8.8 and 8.9 in an effort to make Obama's record look worse. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112120005
Look, I am asking questions and trying to find out more information. I got those numbers from here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Do you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion or "true" information to point me to?
I can tell you that your statement is openly and obviously wrong and distortionary by just reading it, because you're using the oldest most cliched trick in the book. Maybe you should start there in your quest for truth, brah.
I am simply trying to find out what the current numbers are so I can see how they compare to the numbers Romney and Obama are proposing. Isn't that the point of discussion? If the numbers I am finding are incorrect, I would appreciate it if someone would point me to the correct current numbers. Based on the numbers in the author's article, there is no question that Romney's budget is more favorable towards the wealthy X percent than Obama's. In my original post, I clearly stated I was assuming and asked if it was correct or if I was misunderstanding the author's use of tax rate. When SamCassell politely responded, I went looking further and found what again, I assumed were comparable numbers. My subsequent post started "If that is the case" and included the phrase "It looks like". I am not stating anything as fact, simply stating what I have found and WELCOMING any and all pertinent pointers to data that I should be comparing the author's numbers to.
Please. Par for the course for this board. The liberals on this board immediately dismiss threads started by certain users and articles by certain authors or certain websites or news stations. The conservatives do it right back. And then both sides complain about the other side doing it. Guess what? The BBS is more reflective of Congress than they think!
No, not really. Threads and posts by posters being ignored on either side is fine. Those are people who may not be interested in really discussing events and are paid to be here, or just don't provide any meaningful feedback. They should be ignored. But writers and news channels should be looked at with a skeptical eye on both sides, but not ignoring facts if they are presented.
Come on Bob, you've been here long enough. Sam's schtick isn't to have good discussion, it's to act like an arrogant donkey and take shots at people with that condescending elitist tone. It makes better conversation and is better for actual learning to just ignore him and focus on the other posters.
? You don't agree that both sides here dismiss articles written by people they don't like? Please do a search Franchise and you will find people on both sides of the political article using the "attack the source, ignore the material" argument in threads. Article gets posted and it gets followed with "An article by _________? Really?" or "Yeah I'm going to read an article from _________.com and take it seriously!" and then the other side says "Typical _________. Can't dispute the information so you attack the source. __________s."
