DiscussMormonism.com

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... taxes_soon

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 87636.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadl ... rt-the-98/

The projected revenue from Obama's tax hike on "the rich," the pocket change of $823 billion (by Washington's standards) will cover about 16% of projected federal deficits out ten years. That's it. The mad, drunken spending of the political class - the real origin and causal factor in the existence of the federal debt itself - has not, and will not be addressed, until the fiscal cliff becomes a yawning abyss - exactly as Obama and his cronies have so long hoped would eventually come to pass.

Droopy wrote:http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/06/howard_dean_honestly_everyones_going_to_have_to_pay_higher_taxes_soon

But just how much deficit reduction would Obama’s tax hikes on the rich necessarily accomplish?

Nothing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Letting tax rates rise to Clinton era levels for those families making over $250,000 a year would only raise $824 billion over ten years. That is not even enough revenue to undo the sequester that Obama promised “will not happen” during his final debate with Mitt Romney.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 87636.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadl ... rt-the-98/

The projected revenue from Obama's tax hike on "the rich," the pocket change of $823 billion (by Washington's standards) will cover about 16% of projected federal deficits out ten years. That's it. The mad, drunken spending of the political class - the real origin and causal factor in the existence of the federal debt itself - has not, and will not be addressed, until the fiscal cliff becomes a yawning abyss - exactly as Obama and his cronies have so long hoped would eventually come to pass.

Just to make sure you are being consistent, if you think that this move of reducing the deficit by $824 billion is pocket change, you also believe that the taxes imposed by ObamaCare of $520 billion are less than pocket change. Correct?

I say it's time for Droopy to take personal responsibility and back up the assertions he made here:

viewtopic.php?p=662200#p662200

beastie wrote:I say it's time for Droopy to take personal responsibility and back up the assertions he made here:

viewtopic.php?p=662200#p662200

That requires something else besides personal responsibility. It takes integrity and a moral conscience. Droopy sorely lacks in all three areas.

beastie wrote:I say it's time for Droopy to take personal responsibility and back up the assertions he made here:

viewtopic.php?p=662200#p662200

I've already mentioned, time and again, clear examples of such, and I'm not going to do it again because you weren't, as usual, paying attention.

Other than that, do your own homework, and stop playing dumb just to provoke argument.

Just to make sure you are being consistent, if you think that this move of reducing the deficit by $824 billion is pocket change, you also believe that the taxes imposed by ObamaCare of $520 billion are less than pocket change. Correct?

Not to those who will be paying them, or going without jobs because of them. Are you here comparing ever more tax hikes on individual, working, wealth creating citizens with nearly a trillion dollars more taken out of the economy to pay back a tiny fraction of the over $6 trillion in fiat money created as Obama's slush fund to pay-off his cronies and politically connected corporate supporters, bail out the auto unions, bail out private and governmental entities he deemed "to big to fail," and ensconce himself in power as an emperor dispensing gifts and exemptions to favored sycophants?

Droopy wrote:

beastie wrote:I say it's time for Droopy to take personal responsibility and back up the assertions he made here:

viewtopic.php?p=662200#p662200

I've already mentioned, time and again, clear examples of such, and I'm not going to do it again because you weren't, as usual, paying attention.

Other than that, do your own homework, and stop playing dumb just to provoke argument.

LOL. I have to do YOUR homework, you mean.

Go ahead and link to your fomer posts that answer the questions. Remember the questions?

Please list all the various forms of government assistance, benefits, or government checks that "47%" receive on a continual basis.

And please provide evidence that those folks who receive said benefits simply don't work, thereby distinguishing themselves from you, who started working at 16.

I'm waiting.

Please list all the various forms of government assistance, benefits, or government checks that "47%" receive on a continual basis.

Already answered, on several occasions.

And please provide evidence that those folks who receive said benefits simply don't work, thereby distinguishing themselves from you, who started working at 16.

I never made that claim, so nothing is required here. I've been very clear about those who don't work, those who work, and the kind of corporate capitalist rent-seeking that is complicit in this whole system of everybody looting everybody else. The 47% are a demographic who, on average, recieve more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Some of them are the underclass, who pay virtually no taxes, and some are the long term unemployed, but, as I've been clear about before, its the incentives and mindset this relationship to government creates, not whether one works or not, that is at the core of the critique.

Care to make an intellectually substantive statement or argument, Beastie?

Droopy wrote:

Just to make sure you are being consistent, if you think that this move of reducing the deficit by $824 billion is pocket change, you also believe that the taxes imposed by ObamaCare of $520 billion are less than pocket change. Correct?

Not to those who will be paying them, or going without jobs because of them. Are you here comparing ever more tax hikes on individual, working, wealth creating citizens with nearly a trillion dollars more taken out of the economy to pay back a tiny fraction of the over $6 trillion in fiat money created as Obama's slush fund to pay-off his cronies and politically connected corporate supporters, bail out the auto unions, bail out private and governmental entities he deemed "to big to fail," and ensconce himself in power as an emperor dispensing gifts and exemptions to favored sycophants?

That question only has 85 words--I'm glad you took Darth J's suggestion to heart about the advantages of using senteces with less than 200 words.

Paraphrasing your question, you asked if I'm comparing one set of tax hikes with another. The answer is yes I am; it’s funny that your question implies that tax hikes can’t be compared to tax hikes.

Droopy wrote:Already answered, on several occasions.

Then it should be remarkably easy to provide a link or two.

I never made that claim, so nothing is required here. I've been very clear about those who don't work, those who work, and the kind of corporate capitalist rent-seeking that is complicit in this whole system of everybody looting everybody else. The 47% are a demographic who, on average, recieve more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. Some of them are the underclass, who pay virtually no taxes, and some are the long term unemployed, but, as I've been clear about before, its the incentives and mindset this relationship to government creates, not whether one works or not, that is at the core of the critique.

Care to make an intellectually substantive statement or argument, Beastie?

Droopy said:

And this is where you're argument falls on its face. I am not a part of that demographic. I landed my first job a 16. I am now almost 54. In that time, I used welfare benefits for around three years or so (but not continuously during that time, this is a total, and does not represent unbroken continuity).The "takers," - the so-called 47% of the population who are permanently or semi-permanently, over much or the totality of their lifetimes - Julia, in other words - receiving some form of government assistance, benefits, or government checks on a continual basis, and who receive on average, more in government transfers from their fellow citizens than they pay in taxes, is the problem. Some people receiving some help sometimes, here and there, in some ways, was never the problem (although the central, federal government's role in such a safety net is a fundamental problem).

viewtopic.php?p=662183#p662183

Please explain how 47% of the population receive some form of government assistance, benefits, or government checks on a continual basis. Please explain how YOU, who have never paid federal income taxes, have paid more into the system than you've taken out in assistance, benefits, or government checks, while the 47% have taken more than they've given. And please explain how you working a job at 16 and working throughout most of your adult life makes YOU different than the 47%.

Please explain precisely what formula you've used to determine you've paid more back in taxes than you've used in your lifetime, even without paying federal income taxes. I assume that formula takes all the services that government provides into consideration, as well. Roads, armies, health and safety inspections, police, clean water, etc. etc. Please explain how this formula took all this into account and provided a way to determine what it would cost YOU to provide those services for yourself without the government providing it for you.

The funny thing is that you may be right that 47% of the population receives more than it gives in terms of benefits and services. In fact, you're very likely right. But it's funny because you're delusional to insist that you're not part of that 47%. YOU are the underclass who pays virtually no taxes and yet you imagine otherwise. Do you think that the "other" working poor somehow don't have to pay FICA, for example? How do they pay "virtually no taxes" and yet you, who has never made more than 24,000 a year which is barely above the official poverty line, pays more taxes than you receive back in benefits and services, much less your own past welfare?