Paul Ryan
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
asindc
Well-known member
To be precise, Pres. Obama says "we'll just raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year in salary" and people don't run. The reason people don't run is that less than 5% of the population makes that kind of money. Why would most people run?
Anthony, did Obama state last year he was targeting those making over 1 million ? I thought the 250k mark was based on 'household income' not the individual...correct ? regardless, 250k is not 'rich' IMO.
asindc
Well-known member
I agree that $250,000 is not 'rich.' I thought I heard/read that his most recent proposal is to raise taxes only on those individuals making more than 250K (I seem remember that amount from the campaign as well), but I might not have gotten all the pertinent details. At any rate, the 250K proposal is not enough to make most people "run" for it, IMO. I'm not familiar with a $1 million proposal.
Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year. Dave, you really don't consider the top 3% of income earners to be "rich" as compared to the average income family?
as a comparison to which you speak...Ok, I'll buy that, but I just don't see 250k as 'rich'. I know it's a statistical figure that represents a rather small number of Americans, or shall I say a 'Gov't Label' given, but I would bet that if you were to ask those making 250k if they considered themselves rich they would probably say no........ Caveat........I'm speaking monetarily, for we all know 'Rich' goes well beyond the $$ sign !
Len, no worries, it was more than made up for this time around !!!
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html
I'll give you that "rich" is a subjective term. But $250k per year certainly seems to qualify in my book, given that it is five times the median household income of around $50k a year, and in the top 3% of wage earners. Now there is no question that you could piss all that away on frivolous items and have nothing to show for it and say you weren't "rich" because you didn't have millions stashed away in the bank. But that would just be untruthful. If you lived at the standard of living of what people earning the median income live at, then you could easily stash away $200k a year and have a $1 million in the bank in five years. I think most average people would consider that to be relatively wealthy, if not downright "rich."
eknuds01
Well-known member
Perhaps some context is also needed, Dave. I don't think that making $125k (for a single filer) in the Washington DC area is all that much money (in my opinion). However if I was living in rural West Virginia, I'd imagine I could buy some palatial estate...
Re: people running. Remember the first George? 'read my lips no new taxes'. He was forced to and was crucified for it. Ironically by the democrats. Usually saying u r going to raise taxes regardless how u do it doesn't get a big 'thumbs up' from the electorate. Obama seems to pull it off and people dont even give it a second thought. In fact - its considered 'neighborly'.
And no 250k isn't rich. The only people saying ' they don't mind ' are those making millions. Point is sure 250 for a family is a good living but its not like retirement is in the bag or guaranteed. So an increase in taxes is probably something that group is not real interested in.
I think that if anyone here thinks its neighborly maybe u should pony up yourself and give the government an extra 5% on April 15th. After all, that might go to some folks that really need it. The government will figure it out for u though. Who's in?
Perhaps the "Vote early and often" Chicago / Boston folks organized well down there in Florida this time.
Or maybe the Texas folks made it down there. You know, where the politicians are so popular people come back from the grave to vote for them...
On a positive note, at least they decided to count the votes this time.
Oh, and the Good Guy won.
OMG!!! You listen to Rush! That is his line...
If that is what republicans think cost them the election, all I can do is shake my head in sadness, and in wonder, because it will be a very long time they win an an election. Talk about a major political party "not getting it"!!!
By the democrats? Where do you get that from? Clinton won with only 43% of the vote, compared to Obama getting 51% of the vote this time around. States that were normally solid red turned blue. Not because democrats were out voting in large numbers, but because republicans either didn't show up, or voted for Ross Perot, who stole 19% of the vote, probably mostly from republicans. Bush got a lowly 37%. I don't think you can blame that on democrats.
So you think a couple making $250k a year, year after year, doesn't have retirement in the bag? You think that isn't wealthy, even though it is in the top three percent of wage earners in this country? And lets not forget that this is the bottom cutoff. It is $250k a year and UP. Tell me, if $250k a year in income isn't rich, then what is? Do you have to make $1 million a year to be considered rich? Do you think families making tens of millions in income a year, like the Romney's, ought to be giving more than 14% back to their country?
I'm in. I'm one of the ones who will be paying more. And you know what? I don't mind! I don't consider it "neighborly." I consider it patriotic. It amazes me how republicans talk so much about patriotism, until it comes down to giving back to support the country they pretend to care so much about. Ask not what your government can do for you; ask what you can do for your government. Well, you can start by paying to support the infrastructure that makes this country so great. And if the government can use some of that money to help the less fortunate among us, then the country will be even greater for the investment. There are a lot of kids out there who could do great things for this country, if they could just get the government subsidized loans and pell grants to be able to afford an education. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of them would be happy just to have a plate of food at the dinner table.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
BREAKING NEWS
Mitt says "big gifts" allowed BO to win the election.
UGH!
Mitt says "big gifts" allowed BO to win the election.
UGH!
Whoa! Where's mine? I'm pretty sure that according to Romney and Ryan, I'm a "moocher."
Funny (and very insightful) article on secession:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/nov/15/dana-milbank-the-confederacy-of-takers/
Overheard last night: The petition asking for Texas to secede from the Union has now garnered over 100,000 signatures."
"Yes, and they're all from states other than Texas!"
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/nov/15/dana-milbank-the-confederacy-of-takers/
Overheard last night: The petition asking for Texas to secede from the Union has now garnered over 100,000 signatures."
"Yes, and they're all from states other than Texas!"
exactly Erik, it's demographics as well.
jmschnur
Well-known member
It is important that our leaders use unbiased data to make critical decisions. the republican power structure seems to want to make the facts fit their preconceptions.
1. The conviction that the 2012 electorate would be the same as the 2010 electorate despite a plethora of details evidence to the contrary is one example of this. The consequences of this was the loss of many seats in the senate, house, and perhaps the presidency.
2. Now they are depending on a republican firm (Ernst and Young) for their data about the consequences of increasing tax rates on the rich. This firm did a study financed by Republican Party that determined the rate cut would lead to a loss of 700000 jobs.
However the non partisan CBO has just released a more rigorous study that suggests such a cut would lead to a 200000 job loss in the short term and that in the long term due to the reduction to the deficit there would be a net gain in jobs
While the consequences for going with republicans sense of altered reality only affected their election chances, there are more potential negative wide spread effects on the US if we base our fiscal policy on the very poor and non rigorous Ernst and Young study.
J
1. The conviction that the 2012 electorate would be the same as the 2010 electorate despite a plethora of details evidence to the contrary is one example of this. The consequences of this was the loss of many seats in the senate, house, and perhaps the presidency.
2. Now they are depending on a republican firm (Ernst and Young) for their data about the consequences of increasing tax rates on the rich. This firm did a study financed by Republican Party that determined the rate cut would lead to a loss of 700000 jobs.
However the non partisan CBO has just released a more rigorous study that suggests such a cut would lead to a 200000 job loss in the short term and that in the long term due to the reduction to the deficit there would be a net gain in jobs
While the consequences for going with republicans sense of altered reality only affected their election chances, there are more potential negative wide spread effects on the US if we base our fiscal policy on the very poor and non rigorous Ernst and Young study.
J
The link: Romney: Obama Won By Bestowing “Gifts” On Voters
Right, Mitt. Because it surely had nothing to do with the republican wars on women, gays, immigrants, and our economy. It surely had nothing to do with your policy flip-flops, total lack of transparency, total lack of any specific policy proposals, and you and your candidate's willingness to tell abject lies on the campaign trail. (Hint: When the heads of major corporations and the correspondents on faux news feel the need to step up and say you are lying, then you just might have a credibility problem with the average american). Surely it had nothing to do with your and other republicans major campaign gaffes. Surely it had nothing to do with the democrats' much better organized "get out the vote" ground game. Surely. Just a bunch of votes bought with lavish gifts.
Why do guys like him have to make such a big ass out of themselves after they lose? He had the hubris to think there was no way he could lose, refusing to even draft a concession speech, and then when he loses big, he can't explain it except for this completely lame excuse. Notice how he blames it all on Obama for doing something "wrong" instead of owning up and taking responsibility for his own mis-steps throughout the campaign.
I am so glad this man did not win the Presidency. I can think of no one less deserving and less qualified from a moral perspective.
Last edited:
