George Bush tax cuts lowered the lower brackets more percentage wise than the upper if you want to look it up.

DON9876543

George Bush tax cuts lowered the lower brackets more percentage wise than the upper if you want to look it up.

=====

............You look it up......the upper class got a 4.6% drop from 39.6% to 35%, while the Middle Class got a 3% drop from 28% to 25%, plus, because of the graduated tax system, the Upper Class also got the Middle Class cut of 3% for part of their income, so their gain was more than 4.6%. Finally, the capital gains tax was reduced to 15%, which benefited the investor class in this country, guess who that is, it aint the Middle Class, who, if after meeting all their expenses, might have some money left over, invest it in 401Ks or IRAs, which do not benefit from the capital gains tax rate of 15%. Sorry, Bushies tax cuts leaned heavily on the wealthy, his friends.

Core values? ,, "Corporations are People"

I think the problem is we are talking about cuts percentage wise. The highest bracket was reduced from 39 to 35 which is 10%. The typical minimum wage worker or factory worker effect :

Lowest bracket ( minimum wage people) went from 15 to 10 which is a 33 % cut.

Typical factory worker mididle income went from 27.5 down to 15 % around a 40% cut.

My point was all brackets were reduced and Steelers claim Bush tax cuts increased lower brackets was not correct.

Middle income ( Factory workers) went from 27.5 to 15 % which would be around 44%.

Also the capital gains tax may not have benefited rich as much as you think since stocks are down over the last 12 years. Some of us retired people with modest stock portfolios to supplement SS do benefit from dividends and possible capital gains reduction and get the same benefit as Warren Buffet.

Oxymoronic phrasing: "modest stock portfolios" combined with "benefit from dividends"

Those with "modest" portfolios may benefit, assuming they do have capital gains. A lot of us have losses which probably won't "gain" anytime soon. Dividends supplementing SS? The only thing you can say about that is maybe they exceed a pittance for most of us.

Romney is continuing the current GOP yap that the poor pay no taxes. In fact, if you look at ALL taxes and fees and not just Federal Income Taxes, the bottom 50% pays over 70% of all taxes while the top 10% pays less than 1% of all taxes.

The reason that the working poor pay little of no Federal Income Tax is that state and local taxes and fees are notoriously regressive. Sales and property taxes and fees, such as license renewals an tag fees, hit the poor much harder than they hit the wealthy as a percentage of disposable income. This makes these deductions much more effective in calculating Federal Income Taxes.

Even deductions are weighted toward the wealthy. If a rich person gives a dollar to a charity, he can get up to a $.35 deduction. A poor person who gives a dollar to a charity gets little or no deduction. My wife has some low-producing inherited oil wells. Not only do we get deductions for those wells, the deductions are about 5-10% higher than the income. We get frequent offers for them that would exceed their 10-year income because wealthy people want them for tax shelters. No offers from poor people, however, since only the wealthy would benefit.

The simple inability to do math is how Reagan gave us the largest tax increase in the history of the country while convincing his mal-informed lackeys that it was a tax cut. He cut taxes for the wealthy (including himself) a lot, marginally for the middle class and actually raised them for the workling poor. But he also eliminated Revenue Sharing at the same time, forcing states and local government to massively increase sales and property taxes to make up for the shortfall. Almost all this state and local burden fell on the working poor and middle class. Romney's math is of the same ilk.

More propaganda for the ineptocrats, especially the drivel about low income people having to pay more in taxes. I can find nowhere any Romney proposal to increase taxes on these low income people. While the current minimum tax rate for low income people is 10%, it should be pointed out that after factoring in the customary deductions, these people fall into the 47% category that pays no taxes and this will continue under Romney’s plan. So when they say those with incomes of less than $10,000 will incur a tax increase, it’s akin to multiplying a number times zero.

The propagandists don’t want anyone to discover that because it exposes their policy of deception.

I don't see why the uproar over what rom rom says is about? His chances of being the president adds up to a ham sandwhiches chances of surviving a walk through hungry town...... He aint gonna make it! As a matter of a fact NO gop candidate is going to be president this coming election...... Don't take a mathematician to put two plus two togather to add that up....

Sounds like 'Wet Willy' doesn't know the meeting of 'non-partisan'. Yet another uneducated republican spewing meaningless rants.

Great information, Chris. Good post.

Great point, Bethie. Amazing how they get them to vote against their self-interest again and again.

That's the card the GOP is currently loving to play: God this and God that...it's sick. They blind you with their religious hypocrisy so they can further their agenda.

I'd like Romney and every other poli-dickhead to reveal how their policy positions directly affect their own taxes, etc. I highly suspect the right would wholeheartedly resist that as it would demonstrate that they completely self-serving a-holes.

I would propose that everyone in government voting or otherwise touting any piece of legislation where they would directly benefit (tax breaks, etc.) would have to recuse themselves and explain fully the reason why they had to recuse themselves.

Think there's even the remotest possibility that would happen?

Bethie, your comment sums up precisely how the GOP has won elections. They beat the social issues drum selling it as the most important issue; people vote on that and ignore they pocketbooks are being picked clean.

Thanks, SF. And Ruken, I agree. I do not like how they mix religion and politics. Besides, it backfires too much on them (eg., saying that they believe in the bible, in which Christians are given dominion over the earth and are expected to be good stewards of it, yet they don't believe in regulating businesses that pollute our earth and kill people, animals).

To Sick of the Right: It's hard to know how Romney's tax plan would directly affect his own taxes as he has not released tax records (as Obama has). How people make and spend their money shows a lot about their true character, and I'd think "value voters" would want to know this information.

SF:

You can only speak for yourself. You do not know what is in the best interest of someone else.

Politicians do not fool most people (contrary to what Democrats think); people vote for whom they like period..... Most people in America's mind is already made up. They may tell you "I don't know" but in most cases that is a lie. I know how my vote will cast irregardless of campaigns and what happens in the next 10 months.

Bethie:

Obama is the POTUS, Romney isn't. Romney basically is still a private citizen. If he feels that HIS tax records, etc.. should not be for public consumption, so be it. They belong to HIM, not you and not me. Americans are just some nosey people. You know damn well even if he released those records, most of the country is still not going to change their vote. You guys like to throw out the character trait. I know guys that was some of most no-good &*^%$ going, but the character presented showed just the opposite.

BTW: You love Obama so much. Just what has he done for YOU PERSONALLY that has improved your life? I don't mean some hypothetical "if this and if that" happens ............

Set aside the partisan rhetoric and help answer a few questions for me. Still trying to wrap my head around what y'all consider "fair".

1) What is a fair rate of tax for the "wealthy" to pay in taxes? 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of the money that they EARNED, or that someone that did EARN and gave to them, pay in taxes?

@Jess - you claim to want a non-partisan answer, yet your question is one that the right keeps asking. The better question seems to be, How much do Americans need to be taxed to pay for government, and how do you distribute that tax across various income tiers fairly?

Given the state of the economy right now, one group that has extra funds to tap are wealthy individuals and corporations. Fair share is that portion of their wealth that is needed to support government, whether that number is 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70%.

On percentage of income taxed, the Bush White House released a study that said the effective tax rate for someone making $70K was 34%, and making $700K it goes down to 17-18%. Since someone making more income makes a higher percentage of that income through capital gains and dividends rather than wages, every Republican contender will decrease the effective rate for the rich by completely eliminating the capital gains tax.

This is what leads to the above studies numbers, and will be true for all proposed Republican tax plans. the Republican philosophy, as always, is that money earned by the sweat of your brow should be taxed more than money earned by sitting on your duff while your daddy's riches and investments provide you an income.

In the Middle (yea, right) asks:

BTW: You love Obama so much. Just what has he done for YOU PERSONALLY that has improved your life? I don't mean some hypothetical "if this and if that" happens ............

Does ending the Iraq war so my family is intact again count? How about killing Bin Laden, does that count? I mean, these aren't hypotheticals, these are real things that actually made as difference to my personal circumstances. With Huntsman clearly out of the Republican picture (they seem to love to kill off their own best members nowadays), I will be supporting Obama this time around.

@Bethie,

Since the founding of the social sciences in the 1920's and 1930's it has completely baffled researchers as to why poorly educated people will consistently vote and act against their own economic interests. They have actually done considerable research in which they have laid out objective facts and then asked people how they would vote. The voting correlates to perceptions of party and not at all to how much the voter, his social group, or even his class might benefit. It appears that this has been used for decades to manipulate public opinion to drive down taxes for corporations and the wealthy while increasing taxes on the working poor and middle class. But still, people refuse to do the math.

BTW: You love Obama so much. Just what has he done for YOU PERSONALLY that has improved your life? I don't mean some hypothetical "if this and if that" happens ...........

Payroll tax cuts, incentives for energy efficientcy, ending the Iraq war, credit card reform, removed Bush era restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research, healthcare reform....... too many to list

JOn-1321288, I don't know where anyone got the effective tax rate for someone making 70k yearly is 34%. If we are talking about federal income taxes here, I never paid more than 10% while making in that range using standard deductions.

I agree with those that say capital gains is overblown. Stocks have lost money over the last 12 years anyway, so most of us have losses.

Chris, I don't know how anyone can "do the math". All this stuff is way more complex than most voters realize.

I myself like to look "long term" . I see many scary issues coming into play that way. Politicians think short term and only are concerned with the time period between now and the election. I think the stuff going on now with spending nearly double what we take in and printing money can possibly cause the US dollar to go practically worthless in the future, The deficit problem will create serious consequences for our kids and the US economy iin the future.

Medicare will be broke shortly without restructuring. Regardless of what politicians tell us SS is broke and all trust fund money is already spent.

Taxes that corporations pay are eventually passed on the consumers, since corporations cannot print money, it all comes from people.

"Doing the math" is not that easy. This may not be easy news for US voters to accept, But to me things do not look good. Middle class jobs are going to disappear regardless of politics due to technology and foreign competition.

Ursula, in this case, a good chance equals definately!!

Ursula, you bet. That's one reason as a person who worked and supported myself all my life only to finallylose my job at age 62 because I wasn't under 25 anymore, I am scared to death what will happen if any of the Republican candidates win the presidency and bring in a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. The only stead iincome I have is my social security check froom RETIREMENT that I earned myself with tax money taken from myt paychecks ver the years. It is not an entitlement and it is not welfare. If they succeed in hurting these safety nets for those not born to wealth like that bastard Romney unfortunate people like me who have tried to earn an honest living, not shirked, not scammed the system, they may all roast in hell for all I care. Anyone who is a Republican and is not ashamed of it at this point is an enemy of the ordinary American, as far as I am concerned. And a deadly enemy as well, which ought to be removed from office and run out of town/i.e. america like the rattlesnakes they are.

Lil:

First of all you are fearmongering. I have not heard anyone say anything remotely that suggest people over 55 at this time will be touched. You are at retirement age and no one is bothering you. People under 50 probably won't have any SS anyway.

ITM, Debbie's post may be a little over the top, but I understand her concern. Republicans do seem to be all about money, not people. Privatize everything, including education! Raise tuition rates! No healthcare if you don't have the right kind of job! Squeeze the middle class (see Romney's proposed tax plan)! The narrative adds up, and for an older person on a limited income, she may have real stress about losing the benefits she has earned. Even you say that the benefits will be disappearing soon.

Where did you get the idea that I "love Obama so much"? I never said so in my posts. In any case, I feel that he is doing what he can to help our economy recover. It probably could've recovered more quickly if the stimulus hadn't been watered down. I also feel that he got sidetracked with the healthcare reform issue his first year--while this is vitally important, he should probably have focused solely on the recovery and on jobs. Obama is not perfect, but I do not feel that Romney or any of the other Republican candidates (with the exception of possibly Huntsman) could do any better. Now Obama has the benefit of 3 years of experience as president, has improved our relationships with many other countries, and understands the problems faced by average Americans better than candidates like Romney, who has never struggled financially. He has personal qualities and accomplishments that I admire, but I won't go into those since I'm sure they be ridiculed (why being a community organizer is something to put down is beyond me--Obama has also worked as a law professor and a civil rights lawyer in addition to writing two books). While I respect and admire President Obama, I do not "love" him. I respect your right to feel differently.

I would contend that if you look at Romney's record, he would be a very moderate, almost liberal President. While he says what he has to say to run, it has long been a GOP standard to "run to the right, but govern from the center." The problem Romney has is that about 2/3 of GOP voters are moderates, not hard-bitten conservatives.

I have a feeling that the Obama team has dozens of people keeping good track of EVERYTHING Romney stands for. And they will put together very slick ads to show the people just where 1% Mitt stands

Mark R, one can only hope.

The GOP's definition of smaller government means getting rid of clean air & water regulations, getting rid of regulations on oil drilling, food, child and medicine safety, fewer teachers, no Pell grants, cuts to education, no investment in future technologies.

But it also means that they will add laws that will prohibit a woman's right to choose, no gay rights, etc.

You are right, Jimm

The GOP only wants big gov't when it suits their agenda. What hipocrites!

Small government as an ideal does in fact result in fewer police on the streets. Repubicans WANT people to think they mean by "small government" fewer paper pushers and bureaucrats. In reality 'small government" coomes down to fewer teachers, fewwer policement, fewer resources devoted to the common good. The GreedyOld Party intentionally wants everyone to fantasize their own ideal of "small government" when in reality theydon't want anyoone to know what they REALLy mean by that. If they did, they'd vote against these Repb\licans. Because you can bet your bottom dollar small government doesn't mean Congress taking a pay cut or reducing their own nice fringe benefits that the eacy one get no matter how short a time they serve. You can bet "small government" is not for them, it's for all the rest of us and it means cutting services, more layoffs of the government workers (who usually pay ta\xes and keep this economhy going just like people employed in private enterprise.) The ilk that babble about small government jusst ought to be ignored for the liars and shell gamesters they are.

If you do a little research, you'll find that the GWB administration was much bigger Govt than Obama...and it's been historically accurate with all GOP admins....Small Govt rhetoric and they make it BIG....go look it up! What we really need is a Teddy Roosevelt style "Progressive" to come along and say what he actually means, instead of worrying about being PC or losing base....and maybe be sensible about it as well. I'd rather see a flat tax, no loopholes, no deductions, then nobody can complain.

@Sam,

From a political science point of view, what the GOP is doing is confusing "government" with "bureaucracy." In this country government is supposed to benefit the people. But in every country bureaucracy, by definition, benefits only itself. By convincing people that government and bureaucracy are the same thing, the GOP believes it will eventually gain enough traction to cut all social programs and the money can be used to benefit the military-industrial complex, large corporations, and the wealthy oligarchs.

There is a lot to be said that bureaucracy is a bad thing because it interposes itself between the people and the government and actually prevents government from doing its job. But if you blur the line, then you end up throwing out a massive number of babies with the bathwater.

he's part of the point zero zero one percent

by the way the taxes of 1 millionare are paid for by 1300 poor people

More money in lower income people's paychecks, means more money circulating back out in the American economy.

More money in wealthier individuals' pockets, means more golfing vacations in Ireland.

Surely the Obama economic team will come up with a better plan! Who will they turn to for advice ? Joe Biden tell us who:

"When Barack Obama and I were literally sitting in a desk in a high rise in Chicago beginning to plan how we would try to get this economy out of a ditch, literally, the first guy I called was Jon Corzine. Not a joke. Not a joke. Because first of all, he's the smartest guy that I know in terms of the economy and on finance, I really mean this."

Bob188:

That's a CS post at 8.2. Fact is, unless you live in a cave, the odds are you've run up against hundreds - if not thousands - of pedophiles, child molesters, rapists, wife-beaters, maybe even a murderer or two. They might be investment bankers, hey, maybe a priest.

What the hell's the matter with you? It's not as though these people advertise the fact that they're criminals, although there is that rare criminal who loves to brag about his exploits like Dick Cheney.

Give it a rest with the blind partisanship. Try some matters of substance for a change.

Bob-1887910.......

That's (one reason) why Biden is VICE President. You know, like Sarah Palin would have been had we been so foolish as to elect John McCain.

Fortunately, President Obama seems in far less danger of abdicating to his VP choice than Grandpa McCain might have been.

Actually, I lived in Wilmington, Delaware for a number of years. Delaware is the sort of state where you run into the Governor (several times) at the supermarket and it is not remarkable. Ther state is so small that people usually know their candidates far better than in most places.

When Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972, but before he was inaugurated, his wife and daughter were killed in a tragic auto accident and his two sons were critically injured. He decided to work from home, spending all his nights at his sons' bedsides and commuting via Amtrak. When his sons recovered, he continued to do this. It was well known in Wilmington that if you had business to discuss with Biden that you went to the Amrtak station for the 5:30AM train and Joe would be there. If what you had to say interested him, he always carried a bunch of passes with him and would pay your way down and back so he could hear you out on the train. No staff, no appointment, just you and him on the train. I knew a couple of people who actually did this. The guy's reputation was as an honest straight-shooter who could always be counted on. The only criticism I ever heard of him was that if you asked him what time it was, he was likely to tell you the entire history of clocks and leave you still wondering what time it was. He seemed to assume that everyone he talked to was just as interested in everything he was interested in. I would frequently see him in a small tavern in walking distance of his house and near mine as well. He would drop in and have as burger and a coke and talk about sports along with everyone else. No entourage, no staff, and no hangers on. His wife was a noted local educator and appeared to completely eschew the Washington scene as well.

Oh, pray it's so that willard is finished....of course there's going to be some dick@!$%# Republican candidate for President picked someday, if it isn't mr. arrogant rich bastard who smirkingly told a tv interviewer e "migtht consider" releasing info on his tax returns if elected Presidetn!!!!It's not only that he's refusing to release all this stuff now as a mere private citizen, he's not even sayiing he'll do it if elected. Unheard of. I think this means we won't elect him and maybe in his black little heaert of hearts he knows he won't be elected President. RIP Willard. Enjoy your wealth and get the @!$%# out of our way.

Marvin, there were a separate set of tax cuts on the middle class that were part of the stimulus package. Are you sure they weren't talking about those cuts?

Hold on, the reason why the taxes would go up for those earning between $10K and $40K is the payroll taxes (social security and medicare tax) are currently cut by 2% (from a total of 7.65% to a total of 5.65%)to give some refief to those who pay them. When these tax cuts expire these income groups do not pay enough in regular income taxes (which Romney is cutting) to offset this 2% going away. That is why they will pay more. Now that we have temporarily cut out part of the payroll taxes, it looks like it will be political suicide to allow them to return to the pre-cut levels. Social Security will be insolvent that much sooner!

The Tax Policy Center was created by members of the Reagan's, G.H.W Bush's, and Clinton's administration. If not nonpartisan, it at least sound bipartisan.

Further, is there a part of their analysis that you actually disagree with, or are you assuming they are wrong based on your opinion of their bias? And is your opinion of their bias based on the fact that their analysis says something you don't want to hear?

The facts are the facts, of course when the facts disagree with the radical right they must be liberal.

Here's a question for you flat tax Bob-1887910:

Say a young person decides to start a small earth moving business. $100k of equipment is purchased using a $10k down payment and the equipment as collateral. No profit is earned in the first year.

Now, two scenarios: 1. the current income tax system and 2. your flat tax system.

How much federal (income or flat) tax would this young entrepreneur pay under these two scenarios?

Answers:

1. Under the current income tax system, this young entrepreneur would pay no ($00.00) federal income taxes.

2. Under your flat tax system, the young self (and possibly others) employer would pay AT LEAST (an additional) 23% (or $23k) in federal flat tax. Also, the cost of the equipment would be increased to $123k. Since the lending agency will not lend on non-collateral items (i.e. the flat tax), the prospective business owner would have to cough up $33k in down payment rather than $10k.

HOW IS THAT (new and/or small) BUSINESS FRIENDLY ??

It's only friendly to ESTABLISHED businesses who will have far less to fear from young upstarts who might put competitive pressure on prices. But, that's what you folks mean to do anyway....right? Either that, or you just don't think these things through very well. Either way, it (the flat tax) is a bad deal for all but the wealthy in this country.

Bob, MSNBC is jointly owned and operated by The National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and Microsoft.

NBC, in turn, is owned by General Electirc.

Take a look at how much money both G.E. and Microsoft contributed to Obama's campaign fund......close to $1.3 milion between them.

LOL, Any questions?

@J. Merle

Comcast owns NBC/Universal. It contributes to GOP candidates only. You are confusing corporate donations and individual donations. By your logic, the largest donor to both the GOP and Dems is "Retired" followed by "Self-employed." Corporate donors are now unlimited and are not generally discolosed per SCOTUS.

Sir! You don't happen by chance to be collecting Food Stamp do you? Now, to your stupid question. Are you telling me that if I make money and I earned enough to where I could spend it on anything that I'm not allowed to buy myself some diamond and gold if I wanted to? Are you suggestion that I turned over all of my hard earned money and let's say give it to someone like you who probably doesn't work? If you do work then you're probably one of those who either has two jobs or has a low middle class job making 13.00 an hour. Let me ask you sir... Who decision was it to put you in that job or jobs that you are at now?

Troy, you have no right to speculate about anyone's circumstance. You sound like a snob and cold hearted. Not one person is asking you for a dime, not that you would give them one. Not every person is fortunate, and those that are should be thankful, not sarcastic. You never heard "There but for the grace of God go I"?

Taj,

No, I think you are reading me wrong. I never imply that's what I am doing or want to do. I was basically explaining a general view on my arguments. I'm not a cold hearted person or a snob. I am a christain and I do give more than you'll ever know. I think for the most part you misunderstood my point. The point is you have a choice in life in what you want to do. I understand people have circumstances in life that can deter you down the wrong path. But, if you are down that wrong path and you know it then how long will stay on that path? The reason why people are in the situation that they are in now is because of decision that were made 10 or 15 years ago in your life. Just like smoking you know, if you got lung cancer as a result of smoking then that's something you should have taking notice of when you started smoking. Its called personal accountabilty and nobody preaches that anymore. Its about who I can blame and who I can steal from because I didn't do it right. The greatest gift that a man can have is an education and self educate yourself by reading and learning from people like Henry Ford, Robert Kiyosaki, Donald Trump, and people who were successful. Ever heard of the book called Think and Grow Rich by Napolean Hill?

Troy, the point is that if you paid 4% more in taxes, you would STILL have enough money left to buy all the diamonds and gold you could possibly find any use for. I, on the other hand would starve if I paid 4% more in taxes. That is the fact for many of the people in this country.

@Heartlight: Because if people making $2M can now only make $1.8M due to a tax increase, they're like: "F*ck it!".

how much are the bottom 50 supposed to pay? we dont make anything.. We make enough to live on, not pay for the intrest on the loans made to bankers and corporations, subsidize oil companys and sugar farmers, pay for rich representitaves in congress who represent the 1%??

I want to make sure my car payment goes through, I meet my food budget, pay for the expensive medical bills that come with my little boys, and have enough to clear the mortgage at the end of the month. Those who don't worry about that can pay for that other sht..

bsides i have to pay sales, property, school, gas, income state and federal, and every other hidden tax, so dont say I dont pay taxes..

dummies.. fckn sheep..

Troy, my brother-in-law has a master's degree in business and 20 years' working experience in various, successful companies. However, a year ago, he was laid off. It is not his fault; the company was restructuring to save money, and he was seen as "expendable" because he is 47 years old--actually, young by any measure and hardly ready for retirement. He has pounded the pavement relentlessly and has recently taken a job working in a supermarket to help pay the bills. Is he lazy? No. Uneducated? No. Unintelligent? No. Last year, the only salary that he and his wife and two kids lived on was his wife's. Of course, he had some savings because he is frugal and smart. His situation is not unique, and many people have never had the opportunity to get the education that he has. Tuition has increased over 300% at public universities in Texas since 2006--how much should people mortgage their futures to get a bachelor's degree that may or may not translate into a well-paying job?

You make a lot of assumptions that show you have little exposure to the broader world around you. If you are truly a Christian, maybe you should consider taking the opportunity to go on a mission trip to a poorer area of your state or the U.S.--see how hard people work and yet never move up the ladder because the cost of living has risen but wages have remained stagnant. As another poster mentioned, you are successful because of God's grace: who gave you your brain? your opportunities? your health and strength? Etc. Yes, you've used these gifts, but without them, where would you be?

Bethie:

Maybe you need to spread the word to some of your liberal "we live in a secular society" friends. Lets see how they accept the word.

Troy, I appreciate your opinion, but as a Christian shouldn't you be supporting those people who "have circumstance in life that can deter you down the wrong path"? NOT putting them down as being "one of those who either has two jobs or has a low middle class job making 13.00". What is wrong with someone working 2 jobs?? They are working! They are paying taxes like everyone else, and contributing to society. I happen to know some highly skilled people with degrees who are working 2 "low middle class jobs" because they were laid off of their jobs. There are NO jobs in their field to move to, or they have too much experience. What would you say to these people? My friend sends out resumes every week, and is always told the same thing. He is either too qualified, or they are not highering at this time. I agree with Taj, you need to come down off your high horse because you are not being very Christianly. In the Bible I studied Jesus would be friends with these "low middle class" workers and the poor. In the Bible I studied we are tasked to help our fellow man, not to knock them down for working hard and doing what they can to feed their family.

Not everyone can be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or successful businessman. Not everyone has the same learning curve or set of skills. I have a ton of respect for those who will work 2 jobs to support their family. They are trying and they are contributing to society. To look down your nose at someone because of the job they have IS snobbish, and that's what you did in your "assumption" about this person. Taj did NOT misunderstand that part of your message, it came through loud and clear.

If accountability is what you were talking about than say so without coming across so snobby! As it is, I totally agree with you about self-accountability. We need more of it. I always say that college is there, as are technical schools but I also keep in mind that many people do not have the mental faculties to go to college. THese are the people who need our help.

In the middle, I try my best. I'm a rare bird; I am a person of faith with some very liberal values--protect the environment, provide healthcare for everyone, educate every child, end the unnecessary wars, etc. I don't like being pigeonholed by the right (or the left). Living in Texas, I definitely have more problems defending my values to fellow Christians than to fellow liberals, who are much more tolerant of various faiths.

@J the J,

The bottom 50% in income already pay over 70% of all taxes and fees. If you add in mandates (such as state requirements for car insurance) the number rises to around 75%. The GOP is careful to refer to only FICA because FICA takes the regressive nature of state and local sales and property taxes into accounts.

Troy, irrespective of the accuracy of your post, the Romney tax plan is highly regressive, the richer you are the better you make out.

Not sure how he plans to sell that to the middle class.

The way you sell that to the middle class is simple! Nobody is stopping you from becoming rich! Its a choice that we all make. You have a choice. You can either do something with your life and become wealthy and get the benefit of tax breaks and etc. Or you can stay where you are. Now, if you want to stay where you are then that's fine but don't put a damper on those who want to make more money and be wealthy. Its called going after the American Dream but it doesn't happen without a sacrifice. The left ideology in practice basically prevents people from being rich. Because the rules will apply to everyone. People have choices that they make and why should I be responsible for someone else's poor choices they've made? The other thing that I think people leave out is is the reason why you are better off if you are rich is because they understand that its people who are the engines of this economy and not the government. The more money you have then the more jobs you can create. Am I right or wrong here? So, if you raise my taxes because I'm rich then how is it that I can use that money to create more jobs or even a industry for that matter if you are going to take it away from me in the form of taxes? People who are on the left side of the government don't trust people like me and you so instead we should give them our money and let the government do it, right? What if I can do it better than the government? Sorry sir! The less regulations we have the better off we will be. Sad that most people don't see it that way because of being led by a blind leader who doesn't see it himself.

Luck in any decision plays a part too.

How do you expect people to take you seriously when you pontificate sweeping generalizations like "people on the left are idiots!"?

Troy, how do you justify changing the tax code so that the rich get richer?

Mark,

It's "regressive" because the wealthy pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. The bottom 50% wage earners pay 3% of the federal tax burden. There's nothing to cut! The top 10% of wage earners pay around 70% of the federal tax burden. It only makes sense that the people who pay the lion's share of federal taxes get the lion's share of tax cuts. Heck the lowest income groups pay no federal tax AND get the earned income credit paid back to them. I'm not saying their better off but you can't give an income tax break to someone who doesn't pay income tax.

As an aside...... payroll taxes are a different argument but I am talking about income taxes specifically.

Regressive means that the change benefits the rich more than than anyone else.

You can argue whether the rich pay enough or too much but that has nothing to do with this tax policy proposal. It's regressive.

So your argument must be the rich pay too much and they should pay less. That's a legitimate opinion, but it doesn't alter the fact the proposal is regressive.

The notion that if you just give the rich more then they will create jobs or lend it back has been proven wrong many of times. It never happened with the Bush Tax Cuts and it didn't happen when the government loaned the TARP money to the banks. Guess what happened in both circumstances. The rich just kept the tax cuts for more profit and the banks refused to lend anything.

Yes it has happened quite a bit but as usual its usually not reported. I hear about stuff all the time where jobs are created because of someone's idea or plans. As usual, people go on and talk about things because of the poor data or information that is given to them and mostly through the media. Now, I'm not talking about GM, AIG, and Tyson, and Enron and those guys. Yet, those are the ones we think about the most because those are the bad apples that are in the same bag as all the other apples. How come you've never hear about the other apples or hear their stories on what they've done? I can tell you right now about a company that created a six figure income for about over 200 people within the last six months. Have you heard about them? I'm not going to tell you because it will keep you from doing your homework. its out there everyday but people are not just informed on it.

Of course the richest people pay the most taxes, they have basically all the wealth of the nation. What do people expect?

Troy, the is NO evidence that the wealthy create jobs, In fact, the evidence that DOES exist says they mostly park their money in stocks and bonds and bank accounts and live off the dividends and interest (oh, and the stock market is a LOUSY generator of capital for starting businesses - less then 7% of the money there ends up actually starting a business). The people who CREATE jobs are the people who WANT to be rich enough to just live off dividends and interest. I've worked for these people, and I think most of them HATE business, they simply see it as a means to an end, own three houses and a couple of yachts and a fleet of cars and never having to work again. And even the ones who STAY around once they've gotten the taste of wealth aren't really interested in running a business, they are interested in exercising POWER over other people.

I've worked for and known quite a few businessmen, and I can count on ONE HAND the ones who are in it because they love the work, and working with customers and employees and creating something. The rest, its about money and power and that is it.

Pretty sure "trickle-down" economics has been dis-proven in practice time and time again.

how much are the bottom 50 supposed to pay? we dont make anything.. We make enough to live on, not pay for the intrest on the loans made to bankers and corporations, subsidize oil companys and sugar farmers, pay for rich representitaves in congress who represent the 1%??

I want to make sure my car payment goes through, I meet my food budget, pay for the expensive medical bills that come with my little boys, and have enough to clear the mortgage at the end of the month. Those who don't worry about that can pay for that other sht..

bsides i have to pay sales, property, school, gas, income state and federal, and every other hidden tax, so dont say I dont pay taxes..

dummies.. fckn sheep..

All these comments sound like the object of the game is to reduce the revenue the government collects. It seems obvious to me that if you are whining about the deficit and the debt, in addition to prudently cutting spending, the object is to increase revenue, not reduce it. What are you people thinking? I got into more debt than I could handle at one point in my life. The only way I got out was by cutting spending and increasing my income. Seems like a no-brainer. I can't believe that all these Republicans are advocating reducing revenue and thinking we are all going to buy it as a solution.

What do you think generates more demand Troy, one guy will a billion dollars or 10,000 people with 100,000 dollars? Demand creates jobs. All the rich people in the world wouldn't matter if no one wanted to buy the products they made.

This Troy talks about how surprised he is that everyone is SO uneducated. Yet every post he makes would make a first grade english teacher cry... Talk about simple english grammer and spelling totally out the door. Educated my ass...

So,you are saying that because people believe fantasies and are adept at deluding themselves, they AREN'T voting against their own interests?

Just because they THINK they may hit the jackpot and make it into the top 1% doesn't mean they will. In fact, all current studies on upward mobility says the average French or German citizen is FAR more likely to move from the lower end of the economic spectrum to the upper end than the average american is. Upward mobility is at its LOWEST level since the first studies have looked at it.

The thinking of most americans today on upward mobility is on a par with winning the lottery, and the chance of moving up is almost as slim as winning the lottery. And the simple facts of the matter are that upward mobility in the US is becoming more like winning the lottery, just plain dumb luck with long LONG odds against you.

I didn't get my point across because it was embedded in so much sarcasm, I guess.

Of course the vast majority will not make it into the upper 10%. It IS a mistaken belief.

But those who elect candidates favoring the rich are, in fact, voting their own self interest, if morality trumps materialism.

If Obama and the Democrats are truly evil, and if they favor the poor and middle class, then people who consider themselves moral will vote against them -- even if it means they're screwing themselves.

Their interest lies in defeating the devil.

Oh, I see Robert. And, whose idea of morality is correct?

I'd say that the Republican economic policies are far closer to the Devil's way of thinking than the Democrats. Did you forget Jesus' simple way to know the false prophet, like the bad tree, produces bitter fruit, but that the one who is true, like the tree that is good, produces good fruit.

Now consider again who is good and who evil by your own words: "Obama and the Democrats favor the poor and middle class" and the (Republican) "candidates favor the rich." You twist the truth and call greed morality.

Those whose interest lies in defeating the devil should put their faith in Jesus' wise words and trust in their truth so as to not to be swayed by the evil one's twisted lies.

Hard earned is not a requirement to obtaining wealth, in fact it is the most unlikely trait. Inherited wealth is more probable.Long hours making sure that the persons who are making you rich work hard may be an initial requirement. knowing the right people or even better, having a relative or friend who helps you into the fortunate position is better.Being a long time politician will do it,but in general, you must have lots of people earning your wealth for you. Hard work is for the unfortunate persons working in non-union and lower skilled jobs,or part time workers.

benji2, I think you're completely missing Robert's point.

If Obama had figuratively walked on water by literally turning this economy around 180 degrees and negotiating everlasting peace in the Middle East, they would still say he was a devil.

There have been a lot of crap before and since his election, about how Obama (they rarely have the respect to refer to him as "President," while they will for all the former presidents),

• is trampling the constitution (but not the Bill of Rights, which voided out that 3/5 vote part, they never mention the BoR),
• has an "uppity" wife, who is forcing vegetables on everyone,
• that no matter what, he shouldn't have been in the White House in the first place.

Forget any "good" he might be on the record for (including the killing of Osama bin Laden--a number of them totally ignore it or are creating a conspiracy theory group), and bringing the troops back from Iraq. But they don't want to see Guantanamo closed either, so they keep that out of the conversation.)

Sorry for the shouting--I tried to make corrections, but didn't hit the save button on time.

Lesson for everyone: Don't use the bullet feature. *sigh*

Elk, thanks for clarifying my point. I'm not sure the others read the posts carefully enough or had their sarcasm detectors turned up high enough.

The quotes drawn from my posts were made to illustrate the beliefs of those who hate Obama. They were definitely not mine.

I was trying to describe some of the psychological dynamics behind the "voting against their own self interest" claim, without making a value judgment. (I can't help it; I'm a psychologist.)

A lot of us seem puzzled about the poor and middle class voting in favor of the rich and against their self interest. It's important for the rest of us to understand why they're doing this. A doctor can't correct a disease process until he knows what he's dealing with.

When Obama proposed higher energy efficiency for light bulbs, there was a sudden surge of interest in light bulbs. Suddenly, it was discovered that flourescent bulbs contained (gasp) MERCURY. (About 1/500th of that in an ordinary household thermometer.)

If Obama found a cure for cancer it would be interpreted as a socialist attack on oncologists.

It has nothing to do with materialism and everything to do with the character of the actor.

Robert, their posts regarding this article are exactly along the same lines as their objections to Obama's ConsumerProtection Agency's appointment. They have absolutely no idea how much they will benefit from this agencies work.

Thanks for explaining, Robert. But you should consider marking posts as sarcasm when appropriate because that's not as obvious to others as it must seem to you, especially people who don't know you or your political views.

Also, did you realize that, other than the use of obvious clues like an absolute absurdity, the particular psychological context (implicit background information, assumptions, and beliefs) that you bring to the blog at the time of writing is what makes your sarcasm seem obvious to you? Contextual information is implicit or non-conscious, but it nonetheless shapes and colors all of our conscious perceptions. And one's context changes depending on momentary and longer-term circumstances, e.g., the topic being discussed, your educational background, your politics, what you just saw on TV or read before coming to this blog, etc., etc., etc., so yours is not likely to be that close to the innumerable variations of possible contexts that different readers will bring here.

Now that I understand what you meant to say, I do agree with your psychological analysis - that is probably a common motivator for some Republicans, especially Evangelicals, to vote against their own economic interests. Of course, it's a complete sham as I pointed out in my counter post; a manipulation by their 'opinion leaders,' many of whom, I'm sure, really don't give a rat's ass about the morality bull@!$%# they pedlle purely for it's political usefulness.

(Santorum's an exception - a true believer, that one, and a theocrat to the core. Views like his would be a danger to our freedom if the theocrats were to win control of the government; thank God that Santorum has little chance to win).

Benji, you're probably right -- sarcasm (if it's at all subtle) should be labeled as such.

The argument that much of American reasoning is deductive (a bad man always acts bad) rather than inductive (bad acts lead to the conclusion that a man is bad) isn't original.

For anyone interested, it comes from George Lakoff. It has its weaknesses but it does help us to understand why so many of us seem to be voting against our own best interested -- which otherwise seems kind of crazy.

Thanks again.

nope, me neither..

Power to the People

In the 50s, under Eisenhower, the top bracket was more than 90% and somehow the rich managed to stay rich.

Synonym for unbalanced? How about Bachmann, Palin, Manson or Hitler?

I've got it: "Unbalanced as a neutronium teaspoon."

tjohn_missouri, please let Hilter and Manson rot in their hells. Don't make light of their crimes by this comparison.

Bachmann and Palin talk a lot, but they never committed genocide or anyone, either as an elected politicians or as leaders of their own cults. And there's hope that they never will.