Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Words of Wisdom on the Current Tax Rates

I don't really have anything to add to the following rant (which I missed in its initial airing), but I'll do so anyway.

We're nearing the end of the year where the tax cuts put into place by President Bush a decade or so ago will expire, raising tax rates on everyone.  The GOP's current idea is to simply maintain the tax status quo.  President Obama, of course, wants to only save the tax cuts on the people who have enough to live comfortably, but not those who have the money to actually pour into the economy (instead of Washington).   For some inane reason, Obama refers to maintaining the current tax levels as a "tax cut,' which defies common sense, and gives anyone with any income higher than Obama's chosen envy line a tax increase because they're the evil, filthy, putrid rich vomit bastards or something equally designed to call them the source of all problems when not punishing people who aren't broke is the ONLY way out of the mess we;re in.

Thus, I leave it to Rush to explain our disgust with Obama's tax manipulation:

13 comments:

soapster said...

You lost me at Rush but I'm glad you're posting again.

Lista said...

You Know, what the Democrats are saying is that what Obama wants to do is Return to the Tax Structure that was in Place During the Clinton Era and the Clinton Era was a Prosperous Time. This has Confused me and I Need a Republican to Explain this to me calmly without Insulting anyone.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Lista: I'll try to explain it as I understand it.

We're at a certain tax rate right now, have been for about 10 years. If Obama/Democrats allow that rate to change, i.e. Bush tax cuts to expire, then the rates GO UP, which is then AN INCREASE in tax rates. If tax rates GO UP that means LESS MONEY in one's paycheck.

People can call it what they want. But the bottom line is there will be LESS money in paychecks...which is a TAX INCREASE.

P.S. The Clinton Era tax rates are more than the Bush Era tax rates, which will be an increase. So even if we were prosperous during Clinton's era, that doesn't mean we will be now, as the conditions aren't the same (unemployment, war, etc.)

I hope I helped!

Lista said...

Thanks Pam,
Thanks for your Kind and Patient Response and I do Understand what you said. I've been Around Republicans all my Life and Understand how Taking Money Away from Businesses can have a Negative Effect on the Economy. With me, it is not even Necessary to Explain it in Terms of my Own Personal Pay Check, because I do Understand Reaganomics and the Trickle Down Idea.

It's just that I Lack the Knowledge that I should have Relating to History. I Need a History Buff/News Junkie Type to Explain why the Clinton Era was Prosperous and why his Tax Structure was not the Reason.

You see, these are the Things that Democrats Need to Hear and when Republicans just Throw Insults at them, it is not Helpful.

The most Insightful thing that you said is "The Conditions are not the Same." Don't you see. That is just the Problem. The Cause and Effect Situation within the Economy is Complicated and Republicans Interpret the Events one way and Democrats another way. A Person has to Practically be a Brain Surgeon in Order to Sort it all Out and anyone who thinks that it is more Straight Forward than that is not Being Honest with themselves.

Believe it or not, I don't Care about my Own Personal Pay Check. I Care about the Economy.

Lista said...

Don't Tell me I Stumped you Guys. Come on. I Know there's an Answer.

Here's a Conversation from another Blog. I just thought that maybe there would be more that could be said from this Blog. Lisa and Lista are not the Same Person. I'm the One who Added the Bold Emphasis.

Lisa said...
people also have short term memory loss. when Clinton was in office, we had the dot com boom and then it went bust and GW inherited a recession. Then we had 9/11. He cut taxes and the economy rose and unemployment was at an all time low, yet the media and the left kept crying doom and gloom, we had the housing boom and then it went bust. The dems took over the congress in 2007 and they had almost 4 years and turned it around...for the worst. Plenty of doom and gloom now but they refuse to take responsibility for it. They are nothing but a bunch of stuck in the sixties radicals with ideas that don't work....for real America anyway.

Lista said...
Don't you see, that is just the Problem. Since Good and Bad Politics sometimes has a Time Delay, we Debate about who gets Credit or is at Fault for what. Presidents Take Credit and are Blamed for what they Inherit and then when they either Fix or Ruin it, the Next Guy gets the Blame or Credit for that. People then Learn to Believe what ever Supports their Particular Point of View and it is Difficult to Learn what's True.

I guess I should Start Writing some of the Details Down and Try and Remember it.

Pamela D. Hart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pamela D. Hart said...

Lista: Got it! I'm still learning the history stuff too so I'm no "history buff".

If memeory serves me correctly we did have a bust during Clinton's era BUT there were NO BAILOUTS! Clinton, with a Republican controlled House and Senate ALLOWED the market to rebound on its OWN! I'm pretty sure THAT made a difference!

I also remember all the "doom and gloom" during Bush. And I was like "What?" And now it IS "doom and gloom" but the media is trying to say it's "getting better" and I'm like "What?" "Where?"

The media plays a HUGE role, IMO.

I think we also need to keep in mind who was "in charge" during each President's era. Like Clinton had a Repub House and Senate for what 4 years, at the end I believe. And Bush had it for the 1st 4? Then Dems for the last 4, or was it 2? I'd have to look all that up for exact time frames. But I think that makes a big difference. House and Senate make a lot of decisions which really affect the country as a whole

Lista said...

Ok. Let me get this Straight. If the Liberal Media says that it's the Republican's Fault and the Liberals get all the Credit for what's Positive, then that Settles it. LOL.

The Problem is that Fox News has not always been Available on Basic Cable, so how in the World are we Supposed to Get Accurate Information in Order to Formulate a good Memory of Accurate History.

It's good Talking to you Pamela. Where's Patrick?

Pamela D. Hart said...

Lista: LOL on the Liberal media!

I get my info by researching the net. Call me crazy but I don't trust any media outlet!

Yeah and where is Patrick? He goes and writes a post then abandons us like red-headed step-children! (that's not meant to offend red heads OR step-children. I'm a step-child AND I have natural red highlights in my hair from my grandfather who was a red head!)

Lista said...

I guess I Figure sense a Lot of Liberals Hate Fox News, they must be doing something Right. I'm not Really all that Good at Web Searching and am a Slow Reader, so I Need Fox News, yet I Learn a lot from my Blogging Friends.

Yeh, your Poor Abandoned Red-Headed Step-Child. How do you ever Handle it? Sob!! ;)

Pamela D. Hart said...

Lista: True that about Liberals hating Fox. I do watch it. But I'm just not a dedicated fan. I listen to Beck, but again, not super loyal there either. I guess I just don't have time to be dedicated to any one news organization or talk-radio host, etc., but I am loyal to my blogging friends! :)

And seriously, I learn more from blogs than the news! I was never any good at searching either but I got good at it. It just takes practice...oh and time! Yikes! Something not many of us have a lot of!

And if Patrick doesn't join in I'm going to spank him...oops he might like that!

Lista said...

Maybe I'll Help you with that and then we can Throw him in a very cold Lake or Stream. lol.

dmarks said...

Liberals hate Fox News so much that I've seen frequent and loud calls to have the government censor it. So much for the First Amendment.