Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

So lemme get this straight; Obama is pushing for a plan where half of it is spending cuts and the other half is very modest tax increases on other people just like himself, and somehow that's class warfare? Meanwhile, Republicans wish to raise taxes on the middle class.

Go figure.

Obama's going to win next year because the Republicans are just too stupid by a nose with defending the wealthy, but wanting to tax the middle. You just can't sell that in an election year.

Where do you get half? I read that it's 3 to one taxes over cuts.

So, is it correct as I heard on the radio today, that this is biggest tax increase since Ronald Reagan in 1982?

But it's not as big as Clinton's tax hike.....

Wow, seems like there's a lot of mud to sling there

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Originally Posted by Porras

No. No, it's not. You can not have more 1%. It doesn't work that way.

Why not? Because you said so?

Because words have meanings. A group of people defined as the top 1% cannot contain more than 1% of the population.

The fact that I have to explain this to you bothers me greatly.

Originally Posted by Danny

Actually it has worked before. It's called the Clinton years. Also 98% of small businesses make less than 1M per year so I guess there goes that argument too? Do you have another one?

Yeah--Obama's new jobs bill calls to raise taxes on those making 200K and more.

Furthermore--Obama was out there TODAY threatening to raise taxes on corporations--aka business in this country. In return--they have tucked in like a turtle and are waiting for the threat to leave. They've been waiting for 2-1/2 years now.

When Democrats start talking about raising taxes on the rich--the middle class needs to run for cover. Fred Thompson.

Originally Posted by Danny

Obama's announced "Buffet Rule" took me by surprise. I initially thought this would be fodder for the GOP to hit him with "class warfare arguments". Upon further reflection I think it's brilliant political strategy. He is forcing the GOP to defend millionaires and billionaires which will be politically damaging to them.

Of the polls I've seen a vast majority say the rich should be asked to contribute more toward deficit reduction and certainly if there are medicare cuts involved. Also since a tax on incomes of 1M plus affects 0.3% of the population, who the heck to the GOP think they are pandering to when they cry class warfare? How many voters are they expecting to win over?

I think Obama has realized the GOP are not going to allow one single more job to be created under his watch and its time to draw some hard lines that will be a) popular with his base b) make sense economically. Just getting something done is useless to him now because nothing will get done. No "going in 50% on crappy GOP ideas" as Bill Maher put it.

Give em hell Barry!

Well Barry is going to get some HELL that's for sure. Why? Because the GOP has WMD in their back pockets--with the below video--dated August 5, 2009--Obama talking about the REASONS he would not raise ANYONE'S taxes because of the recession.-- This is just ACT 2--same program from 2008. Hammering corporations and the evil rich in 2008 is what put him in the oval office. Once there--he changed his mind--even though he had a full house. Republicans were such a minority they couldn't even muster up a filibuster on any bill for 2 solid years--so he can't even use republican opposition as to why he didn't do it in 2009/2010 years.

So he's doing it again because he is in deep kim-chee with his base. Will they be FOOLED again--because everyone knows it's dead on arrival in both the house and the senate--No one is going to raise anyone's taxes in this economy.

Watch it here:

Obama: "The LAST THING We Want to Do Is Raise Taxes During a Recession" - YouTube

B]O[/B]ne Big Ass Mistake America

Originally Posted by Jefe

A distinction that doesn't really matter - I think you saw my point.

Can someone explain to me what's so bad about this dreaded "class warfare"? I mean, besides the fact that, like, Paul Ryan said it's bad? What's gonna happen if we engage in this so-called "class warfare"? Are the "job creators" going to suddenly stop creating jobs? Oh, wait...

ahoy Jefe,

well said.

*examines the map closely*

major financial institutions be bailed out by the taxpayers, and them institutions survive, thrive and immediately start handin' out millionaire style compensation to...well, millionaires, whilst the earnin' power 'o the rest 'o the country remains frozen or sinks.

thats not class warfare?

the sole way outta that every ordinary american hath to make somethin' 'o tharsevles be through public education, yet fundin' fer public education be on the choppin' block, whilst states dole out tax cuts to corporations.

thats not class warfare?

the wealthiest americans paya smaller percentage in taxes than the other 99% 'o our country.

thats not class warfare?

social safety nets are bein' harpooned, whilst the wealthiest americans be gettin' a taxcut under congressman Ryan's edict.

thats not class warfare?

i could go on, but Yarrrrr! thar be class warfare goin' on already.

i approve 'o this move by President Obama, aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Jefe

Ok, i can see your point. I still dont see what that has to do with the subject of this thread. Every time someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, conservatives predictably yell "but that's class warfare!", then stare at you like thats supposed to be the end of the argument. I'm saying "so what?" in response to that. Let's forget, for a moment, that the term "class warfare" is obviously a politically charged term being used to evoke strong emotions among the right-leaning public. What is so bad about a small tax increase on millionaires? Are they going to shrivel up and die of starvation?

ahoy Jefe,

imma really glad ye wrote the bolded bit, Jefe, fer i've often wondered the same thing.

when conservatives return fire with statements like, "well, thats theft, and its not right!" i often wonder if they'd defend this point, on principle, till thar be a handfull 'o financial titans ondeck, whilst the rest 'o america gets shoved into the bilgewater down in steerage.

i just can't fer the life 'o me understand this complete slavish dedication that many have to the well bein' 'o folks who be engagin' actively in class warfare themselves. the wealthiest americans have access to the corridors 'o power in our country, they write, by proxy, the legistlation (or fight that which they be sour on) and by'n large, be interested in expandin' thar portion 'o the pie to gluttenous proportions.

fine, i can understand that...to the victor goes them spoils.

the thing that baffles me by why conservatives cheer'm on so lustily.

*shrugs*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by Jefe

...Every time someone suggests raising taxes on the rich, conservatives predictably yell "but that's class warfare!", then stare at you like thats supposed to be the end of the argument. I'm saying "so what?" in response to that...

See, I'm all for class warfare. Only trouble is I can't find enough compatriots willing to pick up a rifle and join the cause.

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

So, is it correct as I heard on the radio today, that this is biggest tax increase since Ronald Reagan in 1982?

But it's not as big as Clinton's tax hike.....

Wow, seems like there's a lot of mud to sling there

How do you mean, mud to sling? The Reagan and Clinton tax increases helped pave the way for huge boom periods for the American economy because the advice given to them by experts around then was to correct the revenue problems at the time.

President Obama is getting the same advice they got, and Reagan's own economic advisers agree that taxes should go up modestly for the uber wealthy.

No one resents rich people, even if teabagging weirdos want to try to make moderates and liberals out to be haters of the rich, but that's just a projection from teabagging weirdos.

Everything that Obama said in that speech yesterday was common sense to everyone except about a third to 40% of those on the right who are now so far gone that they don't realize their argument holds no water.

Obama laid things out pretty clear yesterday. He'll win if the Republican candidate is having to defend billionaires all next year, just watch.

Originally Posted by Porras

Because words have meanings. A group of people defined as the top 1% cannot contain more than 1% of the population.

The fact that I have to explain this to you bothers me greatly.

You CAN, however, have the top 1% of the wage earners paying more than 40% of the tax revenues. I believe THAT is what was said.

The fact that THIS needs to be explained is rather amusing.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

How do you mean, mud to sling? The Reagan and Clinton tax increases helped pave the way for huge boom periods for the American economy because the advice given to them by experts around then was to correct the revenue problems at the time.

Thinking that taking money away from those who create the jobs will make them more able to do so is stupidity at it's finest.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

President Obama is getting the same advice they got, and Reagan's own economic advisers agree that taxes should go up modestly for the uber wealthy.

Raise taxes on the people who are spending money and creating jobs in a weak economy. Somehow I don't see Reagan being dumb enough to follow that kind of advice.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

No one resents rich people, even if teabagging weirdos want to try to make moderates and liberals out to be haters of the rich, but that's just a projection from teabagging weirdos.

You do. You do nothing but rail against those who produce. You are hardly alone.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Everything that Obama said in that speech yesterday was common sense to everyone except about a third to 40% of those on the right who are now so far gone that they don't realize their argument holds no water.

Funny, nobody but the 35% who would vote for him if he performed human sacrifice on nationwide TV seem to agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Obama laid things out pretty clear yesterday. He'll win if the Republican candidate is having to defend billionaires all next year, just watch.

As James Carville said "It's the economy stupid". Owebama is a complete failure when it comes to that because he, like you simply doesn't understand what it takes today to start, or keep a business running.

Originally Posted by michael h

Well we are far from the range of reducing revenues through higher taxes. But my response is more about what is created with lower tax rates ... nothing. A consumer spends when they have sufficient income, and smaller businesses will benefit.

Are we far from it? The world has become a competitive place, it doesn't really take much these days it seems to make one country more attractive as a place to spend your capital.

Originally Posted by michael h

Huge amounts of income have been transferred from lower income brackets to corporate profits. When the lower income brackets spend less ... 70% of the economy have less (small business).

Taking money from someone else isn't going to get people to spend more.

Originally Posted by michael h

So you tax less and consumption doesn't increase ... no benefit. Thats why extended unemployment gets offered ... it will feed spending ... where as a higher income getting lower taxes won't.

It feeds it at a great cost. As we've seen the average term of unemployment now is over 40 weeks and consistently rising. Given a choice of sitting on their behinds and collecting a check, and going out and finding work, and there's work out there to be found, quite a few will choose sit and collect.

Originally Posted by michael h

Given the lack of manufacturing base ... spurring anything is marginal and some more marginal then others.

Which should indicate the real problem rather easily shouldn't it?

Originally Posted by michael h

So business doesn't grow ... no consumption ... what then? Bitch and complain? It's a pitiful economic model where you became an importer and lost the ability to consume by exporting the growth factor to your economy.

Yup. Threaten to raise their costs on a daily basis and those with the cash to do something are going to do what? If someone tells you that next year your cost of living is going up, are you going to go on a spending spree?

Originally Posted by michael h

So here we go back to FDR because there were to many tools used to chop into consumption ... illegal immigrants, H1B, Outsourcing, and offshoring.

Why stop there?

Originally Posted by michael h

Low taxes no longer matter ... any benefit from them to spur growth is gone.

Which again should indicate the solution. You really should look closely at Americans For Fair Taxation:

Originally Posted by Danny

Obama's announced "Buffet Rule" took me by surprise. I initially thought this would be fodder for the GOP to hit him with "class warfare arguments". Upon further reflection I think it's brilliant political strategy. He is forcing the GOP to defend millionaires and billionaires which will be politically damaging to them.

Of the polls I've seen a vast majority say the rich should be asked to contribute more toward deficit reduction and certainly if there are medicare cuts involved. Also since a tax on incomes of 1M plus affects 0.3% of the population, who the heck to the GOP think they are pandering to when they cry class warfare? How many voters are they expecting to win over?

I think Obama has realized the GOP are not going to allow one single more job to be created under his watch and its time to draw some hard lines that will be a) popular with his base b) make sense economically. Just getting something done is useless to him now because nothing will get done. No "going in 50% on crappy GOP ideas" as Bill Maher put it.

Give em hell Barry!

This is class warfare with no other intention than trying to appeal to his base. From the debate we have going here it appears it worked.