Republican Primary

[LovePatience]

Tax cuts do not equal less revenue, nor does tax increases equal more revenue.

Everything under the sun is already taxed. If the government wants more revenue, promote a healthy capitalist economy with lots of rich greedy folk.

Tax cuts mean less government revenue.

Saying they don’t is rationalization to deny responsibility. That’s what happened in Texas; Perry cut revenue, and he got less funding between 2003-2007.

As George Carlin said:

“Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”

Someone said I was denigrating conservatives by posting this quote. If so, why don’t you criticize Perry for caring more about giving the rich money than helping anyone outside the womb, not even babies from 1-3 years of age?

Here’s another George Carlin

“Conservatives say if you don’t give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they’ve lost all incentive because we’ve given them too much money.”

 

[bbarrick8383]

Tax cuts mean less government revenue.

This is pure nonsense, and as long as you believe it, there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[LovePatience]

This is pure nonsense, and as long as you believe it, there is nothing else to discuss.

More denial to deny the effects of the policies you propose and the unCatholic lack of concern for poor. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Cutting taxes by definition reduces revenue.

Even Michael Bloomberg says its true: Bloomberg also said that the move would also make sense politically, as the elimination of the Bush-era tax cuts is one of the most viable ways to raise revenue. **Read more: politico.com/news/stories/1111/67942.html#ixzz1lCKoNQHL **

 

[bbarrick8383]

More denial to deny the effects of the policies you propose and the unCatholic lack of concern for poor. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Cutting taxes by definition reduces revenue.

Lol, I’m not the one in denial here.

Even Michael Bloomberg says its true: Bloomberg also said that the move would also make sense politically, as the elimination of the Bush-era tax cuts is one of the most viable ways to raise revenue. Read more: politico.com/news/stories/1111/67942.html#ixzz1lCKoNQHL

What Bloomberg says doesn’t matter.

Look up the charts for tax rates and tax revenues. If you are right then you should be able to easily prove that as rates went up, so did revenue.

 

[CMatt25]

Seems like you’re taking the easy way out by crying “off topic.” I don’t think anyone will mind if you attempt to defend Obama and the Democrats from the accusations made in Ridgerunners post. I would love to see you justify your support for Obama’s hundreds of millions of dollars to failed Green companies and his recent assault on the Catholic church - all the while helping the “very poor”.

Ishii

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8903567&postcount=37

 

[Pork_Roll]

“Conservatives say if you don’t give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they’ve lost all incentive because we’ve given them too much money.”

Ha ha… That sounds about right. The GOP laments paying higher taxes than the less wealthy as a rule–of course so do I. The richest 0.1% pay less taxes than the upper middle classes, though I can’t complain as I hardly pay any taxes. But I really don’t know how much wealth isn’t being taxed in that 99.9 percentile of income earners.

Newt wants to cut capital gains taxes to zero further benefiting the rich. He even went so far as to say it would benefit us all because the wealth would trickle down quoting Alan Greenspan–I wish I was making that up. A catholic tax structure would favor family run and small businesses, and raise taxes on the biggest businesses/corporations. Basically the incentives would favour the weak and small.

There is nothing in catholic social teaching that supports the welfare state as far as I know.

 

[ishii]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8903567&postcount=37

Duly noted, Cmatt.

 

[CMatt25]

The Democratic does not care about the very poor at an ideal level, but it certainly cares about them more than the Republicans.

LovePatience, since you’re addressing the Republican desire for tax cuts, maybe you can help me with this. Here’s what I also didn’t get about Republican Romney’s statement.

He talked about not caring about the very poor because there is a safety net in place for them. But if need be, he would fix it. Yet not only do Republicans want to cut taxes and not raise taxes on the wealthiest who have benefited the most over the past decade, they want to cut programs.

Now I know they’ve come up with this slogan of “class warfare” they now use as a defense not to bring about at least some greater degree of fairness in the tax rates and not raise tax rates on those who can most afford it in these times of budgetary deficits.

So how do you suppose Romney fixes the safety net by not raising taxes and cutting programs?

Then he went on to say he cares about the middle class. And I’m thinking exactly what middle class? The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. And the middle class dream is diappearing for many.

The whole Romney statement just seemed somewhat bizzare to me.

 

[ishii]

So how do you suppose Romney fixes the safety net by not raising taxes and cutting programs?

.

Maybe by not raising taxes the private sector will be able to help the economy recover - putting people back to work and paying more taxes - more revenue for the safety net! What will not work, and won’t help is continued economic stagnation and high unemployment rates that would result from a tax increase. Cutting programs is okay if those programs aren’t working and need to be streamlined. We don’t need programs for the sake of having programs to make us feel like we’re doing something to help people. What’s needed is a robust economy to put people back to work.

Ishii

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Thank God in 2010 the people voted in Republicans who would say NO to his ridiculous spending. I know thats what I voted for.

He has no plan to help… just spend into oblivion… he is a FAILURE.

No, Obama is a success.

He said he would fundamentally transform the United States.

And he said he could cause the cost of electricity to necessarily skyrocket. [He’s still working on that … but the EPA is going to shut down lots and lots of smokestacks.]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Ha ha… That sounds about right. The GOP laments paying higher taxes than the less wealthy as a rule–of course so do I. The richest 0.1% pay less taxes than the upper middle classes, though I can’t complain as I hardly pay any taxes. But I really don’t know how much wealth isn’t being taxed in that 99.9 percentile of income earners.

Newt wants to cut capital gains taxes to zero further benefiting the rich. He even went so far as to say it would benefit us all because the wealth would trickle down quoting Alan Greenspan–I wish I was making that up. A catholic tax structure would favor family run and small businesses, and raise taxes on the biggest businesses/corporations. Basically the incentives would favour the weak and small.

There is nothing in catholic social teaching that supports the welfare state as far as I know.

Cutting the capital gains tax benefits the middle class.

The rich have their structured sheltered deals put together by people who memorize the 75,000 page tax code or their lobbyists who exempt their tuna packing plants on Guam [Nancy Pelosi’s husband] or who funnel contracts [as Diane Feinstein did for her husband who owns URS, a biggie defense contractor] … the Warren Buffets and the Bill Gates’ of the United States.

But if you are a working stiff and save your money and invest it in the stock market and if you take a profit, then the government will tax you. Or, if you buy a rental property and fix it up and then sell it, the government will tax you … and those taxes make it difficult to reinvest and employ folks.

Capital gains taxes benefit no one … and basically are a tax on inflation. If you invest and then sell ten years later, much of the gain may be due to inflation … and you will pay a tax on that inflation, which is not a “real” gain.

Get rid of the capital gains taxes altogether.

AND, if you get burned with an investment that goes sour, you can now only deduct $3000 of your losses per year. Which is ridiculous. Read up on it.

No reason why depreciation should require such complicated calculations, for example. Management depreciation and tax depreciation are different. Just conform the tax code to whatever management decisions are made. The government demands keeping two sets of books … management accounts and tax accounts.

Ridiculous.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I fear that I’ve been caught in a time/space warp and that in November I will have to choose to follow either the Czar or Lenin. (Do I really have to explain which is which?)

Newt may or may not be a changed man since the 1990’s. But politically, it doesn’t matter. The Obama machine will demolish him with his own history.

Vote Santorum before it’s too late!

Sorry. I was thinking you typed Czar or Levin.

[You know … Mark Levin? www.marklevinshow.com ?]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Same old same old from these political topics in the Catholic forums.Nasty and hateful just like the present primary.Why so much hate from so called Christians.
It seems virtually impossible for most posters in the political forums in Catholic Answers to be charitable and respectful concerning the President of our country.
Let there be peace, Carlan

It’s called politics.

Been that way since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went at each other.

Been much much worse than this in the past. Lincoln’s campaign. Jackson. LBJ.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Bush warned congress 17 times about the housing mess. He was called an idiot by Barney Frank and his boyfriend running FNMA.
I worked at a major bank at the time. They shut down their sub prime arm in 2005… Because of Bush’s warnings.

Always funny to me… Democrat President …its all congress’s fault. But when Bush had a Democrat congress… its all his fault.
Nancy Pelosi was saying 4% unemployment was a disaster… what happened when they took over congress… a real disaster.

It’s all on YouTube.

Anyone can just Google Bush’s warnings.

For fun, visit Google and type in " Youtube Barney Maxine "

Unemployment is truly a disaster now. If you figure the number of jobs when Obama took over, unemployment now is up around 10%.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Excellent points in your post, Ridgerunner. But Democrat catholics will cling to the illusion that their party cares about the very poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they care about is power. Obama cares more about lining the pockets of failed Green energy companies with hundreds of millions of dollars - which then gets donated to his campaign. Are the liberal Democrat catholics some of the most gullible people on earth? I have little hope that the hardened, ideological liberal left catholics will abandon Obama even though its increasingly obvious that voting for him is morally wrong. However, I have some hope that Obama’s recent assault on the Catholic church might wake up some of the more moderate, complacent catholics who voted for “hope and change” in 2008. If enough of those voters abandon Obama, it could be a big difference - especially in swing states with large numbes of catholics.

Ishii

One way the Republicans help the very poor is to encourage responsive private charities … such as various organizations of the Catholic Church.

These groups are very responsive.

But what have the Democrats done? Eliminated adoptions arranged by the Catholic Church, for one thing.

Those services helped the poorest of the poor.

Pffft. Gone. Thank you Democrats.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Why don’t yogo back and look at whenthe Glass-Steagal Act was repealed by Lott and Delay, that’s where it really began.

Being bludgeoned with the Community Redevelopment Act had a little something to do with it. With Andrew Cuomo at HUD pushing really hard, as well. And Barney and Maxine. And Franklin and Jamie. You can just Google " Mistress of Disaster " … that’s what my friends in Australia call her.

 

[Josephene]

‘Give and it shall be given unto you …pressed down , shaken together ,running over …’

One major silver lining , in His mercy , if Romney wins the nomination would be , how the Baptist and Evangelical preachers of Obama supporters would have a field day , using all the erroneus teachings of the belief system of the candidate , to help to bring light of truth , to their congregations …

Michelle Obama would have lots more singing , to lead …even to mock …may be flailing her hands too !

and that might help the 50, 0000 + Mormon missionaries that set out every year , to rethink their beliefs …to see the light …after all, through the past years , when under external pressure , they have shown such a capacity, for change …

May be , in God’s providence, it may the very poor who would help them to do so this time …

Not bad …might even help Obama and group , to recognise errors of their own ways , to see that when there are rules against drug use , how far atrocious it is , to support and even coerce rules that are detrimental at worse levels , esp. to the very poor , whom they supposedly are trying to help !

A nation, thus getting a chance , to examine its soul and values , in the light of God , in whom we say we trust…

If this election turns out to be all about same , which can heal the nation possibly far beyond all expectations, , if we see that light , then all these labor pains are well worth it !

It can even turn out to be a reverse of the times of Henry the Eight , who rebellled against The Church , leading the nation to divison and its consequences , fruits of which are still being reaped .

Gingrich’s real father’s name was McPherson …easy to imagine some Irish ancestor , who , may be with St.Thomas More , stood up for truth …

Gingrich is led , into path of unity …with the help of his wife or rather prayers of a holy Pope , who ardently trusted in God’s promise , of what unity can do …and helped to bring light of that truth , to nations world over , esp. the most oppressed …

If it is the fire of that light that burns him , to move ahead in similar ways ,leaving behind past transgressons , we can also marvel , like the poor parents of The King of Kings , when they brought Him to the temple , at what God can accomplish , through those who trust in Him !

.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is pure nonsense, and as long as you believe it, there is nothing else to discuss.

What happened to tax revenue when the Bush tax cuts were implemented? They went down. What happened to tax revenue when Clinton increased tax rates? They went up. While it is possible to raise tax rates and have tax revenues fall, it doesn’t have to happen that way. Sometimes when you raise tax rates tax revenue actually increases.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

One way the Republicans help the very poor is to encourage responsive private charities … such as various organizations of the Catholic Church.

These groups are very responsive.

But what have the Democrats done? Eliminated adoptions arranged by the Catholic Church, for one thing.

Those services helped the poorest of the poor.

Pffft. Gone. Thank you Democrats.

Sorry for replying to myself, but I was on another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=639005&page=35

and found detailed descriptions from Suudy, JReducation, Abyssinia, and others … check them out.

 

[bbarrick8383]

What happened to tax revenue when the Bush tax cuts were implemented? They went down. What happened to tax revenue when Clinton increased tax rates? They went up. While it is possible to raise tax rates and have tax revenues fall, it doesn’t have to happen that way. Sometimes when you raise tax rates tax revenue actually increases.

I don’t think I said otherwise. My point was that the health of the economy has more to do with tax revenue than the tax rate does. To assume that an increase in tax rate automatically brings a increase in tax revenue is silly, especially when the economy is down. As a percent of GDP the revenue is pretty much stayed in that 20 to 30 percent range for the last 60 years or so. Which means government may see an increase of revenue, but it’s more related to the economy, not tax increases even though they have fluctuated all over the map for the last 60 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-2008.png/800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993-_2008.png

One can’t look at this chart and think only about tax rates, but also, and more so about the economy.