Those selfish richer's!

[tjts1]

In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called “Bush tax cuts.”

So income inequality got even worse under Bush? Shocking!

[mrsleeve]

^
No just means there are more write offs and so on to get you to do shit, like have kids and buy over priced real estate, so now we are up to 47% of people that pay no income tax. go read Nandos post hes not paying much in federal taxes yet makes a comfortable income as a family (close to the top 10% of households by his own admissions), now multiply that by a few million households = yet another logic fail and failed trolling attempt by you.

Good try this time I give you a C for your effort

you're kidding right? please tell me you're kidding about that statement.

No not really, My Gpa was 85 fell and broke his hip. No expense was spared though Medicare to patch him up, even with a known history of cancer, that did end up getting him 10 months latter.

Seems every one that I know thats old and seems like most of the non old people I know, their old people have very similar experiences.

Besides its not the JOB of the govt to take care of the old people, its not my responsibility/job to pay to take care of the old people in your family, just like its not yours to do so for mine. We are supposed to revere and cherish our old people, and families are supposed to take care of them NOT THE GOVT, but thats the system we have now so thats what we are working with. People just want to pass them off to someone else thats not a govt problem that a family and people problem and cant be solved with more govt

Sounds more like a societal issue dosent it ??? What you are asking for cant happen no matter how much you want to penalize those of us that make a little bit more money

[Kershaw]

we've hired a butler to take care of my grandmother. that's out of pocket for us. but neither you nor me are anywhere near the bottom financially.

what about the places where even if you are eligible, there is no access. annddd 16% of people over 65 are living in poverty. that is not an insignificant amount to me.

and as for higher taxes for the rich, when clinton was president he did just that. and republicans said it would kill the economy and the middle class. but what happened? the national deficit went down every year. but bush immediately reversed that, got into a few wars, and look at us now. what a horrible person he was. obama really needs to take the reigns here and hike taxes.

[mrsleeve]

Well I have drug my self outta the poor house by my boot straps, I grew up not dirt floor poor, but I paid more in federal income taxes last year than my dad grossed for much of my child hood. My grandparents were smart saved and did well for them selves and have been able to take care of them selves for the most part, but we all pull together when we need to help when necessary.

Anyway those 16% while I agree is sad is still lower than the general population living below the poverty line, so your point here is what really??? When your old your chances of being poverty stricken is less than when you can earn your own living??

Yeah Willy inherited a good economy, and 8 years of stability, it was the wars that really killed the budget for boosh.

[joshh]

you're kidding right? please tell me you're kidding about that statement.

Let's see....you pay in a small fraction of what you get out of the system. Yep, damn well taken care of considering Constitutionally it should be strictly the person's savings and the person's family taking care of them when they get old and retire.
And you wonder why Americans aren't saving as much as they used to anymore...

[herbivor]

Yeah Willy inherited a good economy, and 8 years of stability, it was the wars that really killed the budget for boosh.

He inherited a recession and a President that put us in Iraq.Sound familiar? It was only by his second term we were fortunate enough to have the tech boom from the Internet that gave us a surplus. This would've happened regardless of who was President at the time.

[joshh]

He inherited a recession and a President that put us in Iraq.Sound familiar? It was only by his second term we were fortunate enough to have the tech boom from the Internet that gave us a surplus. This would've happened regardless of who was President at the time.

I can play that game...who created the housing bubble and pushed to give poor people housing they couldn't afford.....Willy.

[Ryan Stewart]

I can play that game...who created the housing bubble and pushed to give poor people housing they couldn't afford.....Willy.

He went along with it but Barney Frank was the Champion of that shit. And the hilarious thing is he is still around to blame Bush for it.

[BraveUlysses]

Barney Frank pushed for repealing Glass–Steagall?

[nando]

I think he's talking about the acts meant to increase homeownership

[herbivor]

I can play that game...who created the housing bubble and pushed to give poor people housing they couldn't afford.....Willy.

Willy was an old school Republican. Too bad those don't exist anymore.

[gwb72tii]

and as for higher taxes for the rich, when clinton was president he did just that. and republicans said it would kill the economy and the middle class. but what happened? the national deficit went down every year. but bush immediately reversed that, got into a few wars, and look at us now. what a horrible person he was. obama really needs to take the reigns here and hike taxes.

you seem to be smarter than this analysis Kershaw.

tax hikes had little if any impact on balancing the budget during Clinton's reign. for the first and only time in my lifetime of being a voter, congress stopped the growth of government spending. and what happened? more money left in the private sector, better economy, and better tax receipts for the IRS.

you know, or should, that taxing the "rich" will do nothing for balancing the federal budget. i just read an report yesterday that if obama hiked the top rate to 100% on incomes over $1,000,000 it would raise an additional $616 billion, less than half of obama's deficit this year. and that assumes no change in behavior of those making over $1 mill, and also congress not upping its spending due to higher tax receipts, which they have always done.

[gwb72tii]

He inherited a recession and a President that put us in Iraq.Sound familiar? It was only by his second term we were fortunate enough to have the tech boom from the Internet that gave us a surplus. This would've happened regardless of who was President at the time.

Actually not quite true on two or more counts.
The United Nations put us into Iraq, remember?
Also, the tech boom helped then just like today, but it was Clinton's tax cuts and the Republican congress' control of federal spending that caused a boom in economic activity which resulted in large % increases in federal tax receipts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

[nando]

Actually not quite true on two or more counts.
The United Nations put us into Iraq, remember?
Also, the tech boom helped then just like today, but it was Clinton's tax cuts and the Republican congress' control of federal spending that caused a boom in economic activity which resulted in large % increases in federal tax receipts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesk...-tax-increase/

they were different republicans back then. much less of the mouth foaming fanatics they are now.

also, you don't think GWB had anything to do with us going into war? really? Actually, I don't believe GWB neccesarily made the choice on his own, but the people surrounding him had him convinced.

[gwb72tii]

GWB had a big influence, but ultimately is was a continuation of the original Gulf war as Hussein broke the resolutions and the original war was on 'hold".
the "foaming fanactics" are on both sides, and our president is the most fanactic of all. you get back what you put out, and obama isn't going to get anything from the republicans

as an add-on, it will be interesting to see if obama can be re-elected running on a promise to raise taxes.