Another Republican leaves due to Tea Party extremism

The top 1% includes those with over about $400,000 in income and the "super-rich" only represent a small percentage of that group and they pay the lowest tax rates in American as their major source of income are investments with a top tax rate of 20% and where they can avoid much of that by channelling their income through paper corporations in off-shore tax havens.

We can also note that the Top 1% only provide about 1% of the Social Security/Medicare tax revenues that account for about 40% of all federal tax revenues. The source of the vast majority of the Social Securty/Medicare tax revenues is from the bottom 50% of American income earners based upon their labor and gross income. Always remember that the "Payroll Tax" is really nothing but "unreported income" to the worker as its compensation for labor paid directly to the US government by the employer and doesn't show up as income for the worker.

So the statement that the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the taxes collected by the Federal Government based upon the "earned income tax" is nothing but dishonest propaganda based upon a 1/2 truth. Of course good propaganda is always based upon 1/2 truths but revelations of the "whole truth" quickly invalidates this propaganda.

This appears to be an unsupported opinion but even if true then I'd have to ask what percentage the bottom 50% ultimately pay in taxation? I live in WA which is the most regressive state when it comes to local and state taxation and a recent study found that here a low income worker has 14-times the tax burden relative to income when compared to the high income earners in the state.

Bill Gates is the second wealthiest man in the world with an estimated worth of $78 billion and an estimated net income of slighlly more than $3 billion per year. He lives here in Washington, as do I, and owns a house (mansion) on Mercer Island that is worth about $500 million. I own a house worth $150,000 and for comparitive purpose will use my average net income over the last 10 years of about $50,000/yr. While the property tax rates vary because of local levies if we assume a 2% rate then Bill Gates owes about $10 million on his home annually or less than 0.34% of his gross net income in property taxes. I owed about $3,000 in property taxes or about 6% of my net income in property taxes.

My property tax burden relative to income was over 17-times the tax burden relative to income of the second most wealthy person in the world in the State of Washington were be both live!!!!

When the tax burden relative to income is at least equal but we're upside down when it comes to tax burder relative to income in the United States. The lowest income workers have the highest tax burden relative to income while the highest income individuals have the lowest tax burden relative to income.

 

Seems to me to boil down your long winded post

Soak the rich

Give the money to the poor

and squeeze as much as we can out the rich since they did not earn it and are not entitled to keep their money

Is that about right?

 

[videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature=related[/video]

They don't look pressured to me.

 

I don't want to link political ideology to ones cognitive faculties at this point in the thread. Yet I do agree the approach of the Tea Party for fiscal responsibility is misguided, irrelevant of their clinical condition.

Yes Congress is responsible and they need to set aside the bickering and get it done. I have stated in previous posts, if they want to cut spending, get a number, make it small in the beginning so as to not shock the system, but do it evenly across the board, targeting any one spending item is political BS. Yes I also agree the needs to pay more while times are tough, so that when times are good then we can reciprocate their "charity". The point being, make a deal to help the nation overall, and this is another area where the Tea Party and now the whole right wing bloc has gone mental and believe they don't need to pay taxes.

 

Well stocks are a market value. There are constructs in place to help prevent sell offs, the same with inflation, to help retard that, make it difficult to borrow, that is the classic counter cyclical procedure.

 

I'm talking about a REAL news story. If the government was going house to house confiscating all guns, that would be HUGE news story and conservatives would be going nuts lighting up message boards with their outrage and threats. Instead you give me a video from probably the nuttiest of all gun nuts and expect me to take it seriously?

 

No liberals voted for it. Only the corporate neo-libs who are all cowards.

- - - Updated - - -

That's just as bad as what you did. You and Obama maybe more alike than you'd think.

 

Tea party reading comprehension at its finest.

 

Did you not see in the video for yourself that the police chief of New Orleans said no one will have guns in the city? That was a clip for the news. Hello. Most of the clips from the video was from news feeds. What more you want man. I am 55 miles south of New Orleans. This (*)(*)(*)(*) happen. They went door to door. Removing guns. http://youtu.be/C9qQ-2zeX0E

 

Here is something. http://youtu.be/NmQW6xLECUU

 

So tell me again how the government won't take away guns. I'm not sure if you haven't notice the government lies.

 

Agreed! The last thing we on the Right need as we struggle to pull this poor, beleaguered country out of the festering socialist crapper it has become is another back-stabbing RINO. Sue Wagner can go join the Constitution-hating, socialist slimebags that she feels "at-one" with now.

Parenthetically, if people had to be able to support themselves without government welfare-suck programs in order to be qualified to vote, there would not even be a Democrat Party at all....

 

Why don't you list the names of the democrats who voted for it then list which ones aren't liberal democrats. Course if you don't think Hillary is liberal ....holy sh&^* eyeroll.................wow

 

The Tea Party doesn't want to soak the rich and deadbeat libs do.

That's easy enough to comprehend.

 

and you have the liberal snobbery down perfect. Your liberal economics is on display in DC right now and we are seeing the end result. A damn near still born Obama economy

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like his slogan for the Democrats in 2014 and 2016 should be

"Democrats - We have what it takes to take what you got"

or

"Someday none of this will be yours"

 

This is, I believe, the feeling of most people in America which is why the Republicans have generally been held responsible for the gridlock in government. Starting in 2008 several in the Republican leadership openly stated that the goal of Republicans in Congress was to oppose anything "Obama" and they've been following that in their political actions.

The "Tea Party Republicans" in the House are the worst because they openly pass House legislation that is purely partisan with no hope of ever being enacted into law that requires both parties to agree with. How many "laws" did they forward to the Senate that "repealed" Obamacare were there? Well over 40 and they knew before even discussing it that these were DOA in the Senate. Why were they wasting their time and the time of the American People? They didn't offer even one proposal that would have fixed any of the problems with Obamacare and we know there are many problems to be fixed.

The problem is that the spending must be addressed by "necessity" and not by program. For example which is more important. Ensuring a child has something to eat with SNAP benefits or building another Abrams tank that the US Army says it doesn't need? Is it more important to give money to the agricultural industry that are nothing but profit subsidies or is it more important to fund the SNAP program that provides supplemental food to families that don't have enough income to provide the food on the table they need?

Pick your poison but realize that all spending is not equal unless the criteria of "necessary" and "unnecessary" is the ultimate criteria and Congress is responsible for determining that. What we've actually ended up with is one side that might believe having 13 carrier groups so that we can flex our military muscle around the world is necessary while another group thinks that ensuring Americans have enough to eat is necessary so we end up funding both and then not paying for the full costs of the authorized expenditures because some don't want to collect enough in taxes to do that.

I have my own opinions on what's necessary and what's not necessary or of lesser importance. I prefer spending on America itself as opposed to spending money related to other countries. I'd rather feed someone here than kill someon on the far side of the world but that's just me. I'd prefer to protect the enviroment here as opposed to destroy the environment in another country. So yes, I have my spending priorities but that's just me.

I know that I don't make those decisions. What I also know is that Congress does and when it does then it has a responsibility to collect enough from me and other working Americans to pay for what those in Congress establishes necessary expenditures. If it costs an average tax rate of 25% to fund the "necessary" expenditures then that's what it costs. I believe that we can cut unnecessary expenditures so that it doesn't require a tax rate of 25% but Congress decides the necessary expenditures and as American it's our responsibility to pay for what Congress determines is necessary even if we disagree with it.
.

 

I understand the spending is not equal, but if that approach is taken, it must be done in small steps so as to not shock the system. The whole of implementing an across the board, is to remove any political aspersions about which and where to cut. If the cuts are going to be done, then make it fair and not pointed at someone's political ideology otherwise nothing gets done.

Again, I despise the Tea Party and how they conduct themselves as something high and mighty.

 

And yet that's exactly what the Democrats did with the ACA. Republicans offered amendments that would have fixed some of the issues that it is having now, yet Democrats shot down every amendment, go figure. The Republicans in the House have voted on many bills to either repeal or repair the ACA, Harry Reed won't even look at them or put them into committee.

The Democrats claimed (200, they won, therefor they set what is to be passed and vote for what they want, denying to Republicans any form of actual Democracy. Why do you think the Democrats lost the House? Whats going to happen if the Democrats lose the Senate this year? Should the Republicans then tell the Democrats, tuff (*)(*)(*)(*), you lost?

You do understand that farm subsidies, in most cases, helps to reduce the cost of food at the market.

 

What goes around comes around

Democrats are running scared from Obama and Obamacare. The economy stinks. Unemployment is high. Labor participation has not been this low since the days of Peanut Carter, Gas is still nearly double what is was when Obama took office. Heating bills are through the roof. Over 6 million have had their health insurance taken away from them

Democrats must now face the PO'd public and try to explain why

However I do not believe blaming Bush and the Republicans will cut it this time

 

Are you really unaware that Tina Fey spoke that line in a Saturday Night Live skit?

"I can see Russia from my house!" – Sarah Palin

It was actually comedian Tina Fey, who was impersonating Ms. Palin on Saturday Night Live, who uttered the line that is now widely attributed to the former Alaska governor.

The basis for this line comes from a September 2008 interview with ABC News's Charles Gibson, who asked Palin what insights she had from her state being so close to Russia. She responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."​

 

How are you going to do that?

 

I paid a lot of attention at the time and I'm unaware of these proposals so perhaps you can share them with me. Let me present some of the problems we're aware of and perhaps you can share what amendments were proposed by the Republicans that would have reduced or eliminated them.

One problem is with the "employer mandate" and it goes beyond the fact that the "website" wasn't ready for them to sign-up for group health insurance which Obama delayed until 2015. The problem relates to the loophole that establishes a 50 full time employee requirement and excludes part time employees. As Republicans have pointed out this clause in theory could prevent expansion from below 50 employees to 50 or more full time employees although there is no evidence of this happening or that it will happen. It could also, in theory, result in an enterprise using more part time employees than full time employees but once agian there is no actual evidence of this happening.

I don't recall any Republican proposals that would have addressed this problem although I've since made one that would. My proposal was simple in that the employer would be required to either provide health insurance or contribute $1.50/hr for every employee not covered to a fund that the employees could use to subsidize the purchase of private insurance. Considerations of part time, full time, and number of employees would not have been included at all eliminating any loophole.

We have the problem of the website not being ready when require because numerous access problems existed. White those problems have apparently been resolved I'm unaware of any proposals by Republicans that would have ensured it would be ready on Oct 1st when it needed to be fully up and functioning.

There was a problem with existing individual insurance (grandfather clause) because the effective date was when the law was signed into law as opposed to Dec 31, 2013 when the ACA became effective. This resulted in the cancellation of private insurance plan in some cases but there is also the problem that many insurance companies simply decided to pull out of state markets because their market share of private insurance business didn't warrant staying in the market once the ACA became effective in 2014. I don't recall Republicans proposing an amendment to change the effective date of the "grandfather clause" although they might have. Obviously the government should not have prohibited the withdrawal from the market of a private insurance company based upon a business decision.

Another problem has been with individuals not being able to retain their personal doctor. This problem is based upon the fact that in some cases the medical provider would not: A) Accept those that will now be covered by Medicaid, or B) the provider will not accept the private insurance policy the person selects based upon the insurance exchange, or C) the person's private insurance was cancelled either due to the date of the "grandfather clause" or based upon a market decision by the insurance company.

Another problem has been that the expansion of Medicaid, as required by the PPACA, to all states was struck down by the Supreme Court. This wasn't anticipated in 2009 and I'm unaware of any proposals by Republicans at that time that would have had any impact on it. We can note that the expansion of Medicaid was based upon the principle of fulfilling the original Mission Statement of Medicaid which was that it would provide health care services for those that could not afford those medical services. The expansion of Medicaid was to correct the problem that the federal government and the states, which co-fund Mediciad, never provided the necessary funding to meet the original Mission Statement for Medicaid. The problem now is that the Supreme Court struck down mandatory state participation which leaves about 5 million people that can't afford even one dime to fund private insurance purchases. The only option for government because of the refusal of some states to accept the expansion is that the federal government will have to fund 100% of the cost of private insurance for those that would have been covered by the expansion of Medicaid. Once again I don't know of any Republican amendments that would have addressed this problem.

There are unquestionably other problems but these have been the key problems so far. What we must also address is the fundamental problem that the PPACA was attempting to fix and that was the tens of millions of Americans that didn't have health insurance of any kind and the estimated 45,000 Americans that were dying each year because they didn't have health insurance of any kind. That is what the PPACA attempted to address and currently it is not going to provide that insurance although every year that passes it will utimately address more and more of those that lacked insurance either public or private and it will reduce the number of deaths that result from a lack of insurance. That was the fundamental problem and I don't know of any Republican proposals that addressed that fundamental problem.

I would like to learn of some of the proposed Republican amendments that would have addressed the specific problems I've listed as well as any proposals by Republicans that would have addressed the fundamental problem of tens of millions of Americans without any insurance at all that resulted in tens of thousands of Americans dying annually because they lacked insurance.

 

if the republicans all leave then all the low ratings will be with the Dems , I think it will show that the people are really disatisfied with all politicians , plus the Dems will not have anyone to blame for their mistakes.

 

Oh god, there is so much misinformation in your reply I don't even know where to start.

Lets start out with this little gem. Your first claim that:

There is AMPLE evidence of this happening, if you actually care to look:

http://news.investors.com/politics-...56-obamacare-401-employers-cut-work-hours.htm

Your second absurd claim:

Republicans don't have to make a PROPOSAL for this. What would they do to make you happy? Say "Well, we wouldn't have had all these problems?" Yea, and you'd say "prove it". You can't prove a negative. And as Bill pointed out in the interview with Obama, 8% of people reported the website is functioning properly. So no, it's not "been resolved." Get your head out of MSNBC's ass.

The republicans have shown many things that would fix this by not causing the problem in the first place. You liberals act like "If the gov't doesn't do this kind of healthcare, what kind of health care should the gov't do?" The republicans answer is to keep the gov't the hell OUT of healthcare.

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

45000? Really? Is that one of those numbers MSNBC pulled out of their ass and shoved into yours? Because that's about all its worth. When looking into the source of the 45,000 death number, we find the single payer advocacy group "Physicans for a national health program" is behind it. Oh oops, you mean to tell me a liberally biased single payer slanted group comes up with inflated numbers? Say it ain't so!

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

I would call this "pwning" your reply, hook line and sinker.

 

So only 3M have signed up under the "web-site" while more than 5M have lost their insurance due to "If you like your plan, you can keep it." Many have been forced onto the States Medicare plan, causing an issue in other ways, lack of Doctors accepting the plan, an eventual increase in taxes because of it, etc.