Petitioning: Lifejacket-clad demonstrators deliver message to Hurt
-
Jane Foster, Harold Folley, and Cyndi Richardson are concerned about health care.photo by lisa provence -
Medicare and Medicaid supporters dropped by Congressman Robert Hurt's office.photo by lisa provence
About a dozen and a half citizens showed up at Congressman Robert Hurt's Charlottesville office August 3 to deliver a letter objecting to his votes they say are against Medicare and Medicaid.
“We are hurt that Representative Hurt votes to cut Medicaid and Medicare,” said Nia Bentall, a University of Virginia student. “These programs are lifesavers. People who struggle with mental illness, foster care children, and our seniors are all directly affected by these programs– they are like the life jackets that we are wearing."
Demonstrator Cyndi Richardson said she'd been ill the previous week. "All I could think was, I can't afford to go to the hospital." she said.
According to Virginia Organizing, more than a million Virginians are on Medicare, and over 900,000 get Medicaid benefits, including 521,000 children.
"Not a day goes by that Congressman Hurt says Obamacare is bad," said Joe Szakos, executive director of Charlottesville Virginia Organizing. "Hurt criticizes the plan, but never says what he would do."
“Congressman Hurt welcomes all constituents to our office and we always appreciate their input, " says Hurt spokesperson Genevieve Villari in an emailed statement. "He certainly shares 5th District Virginians’ concern with the future of our Medicare and Medicaid programs and will continue working to address this concern."
Hurt has voted to repeal $500 billion in cuts to those programs from the President’s health care law, says Villari. House Republicans "are the only ones who have offered a plan of action and Congressman Hurt has voted on every occasion to preserve Medicare and Medicaid while strengthening these programs for the future,” she says.
Hurt's office at Berkmar Circle is on private property. His predecessor, Tom Perriello, also had a Charlottesville office on private property, and was criticized when the landlord asked protesters to stay on the public sidewalks. So far, says a Hurt staffer in his third-floor office, no one's complained about demonstrators.
51 comments
Correction: Tom Perriello was criticized for having his office on the private property of a landlord who had a documented record of allowing liberal protesters to demonstrate without restriction but called the police whenever conservative protesters were there. Videotaped evidenced proved the conservative protesters were neither loud nor disruptive, as the liberal-progressives were on occasion.
Also, that landlord was a proven to be a Perriello political supporter who not only donated her own money to his election campaign but hosted a fundraiser for him.
It was a cozy and convenient relationship for Tom. He could always say HE never called the police to discourage dissenting protesters. His landlord could do it for him.
I would suggest begging with a healthy diet and activity as a good start to your medical care. I personally get annoyed at the thought of having to foot the bill for smokers and overweight people.
Thanks for clarifying, Amanda!
Obamacare creates an unwieldy and expensive increase in bureaucracy in order to reduce health spending.
I don't know about you, but I would rather see our healthcare dollars actually go towards providing direct Health CARE, rather than to government bureaucrats. I work in healthcare, and the amount of regulation that is already being put into place under Obamacare is mind-boggling.
To the 18 protestors and all the other people who think Obamacare is going to be a good thing, ask yourself two questions:
1) Do you want your doctor and your nurses filling out paperwork (or electronic forms) half of their day, or do you want them at your bedside?
2) As more physicians withdraw from Medicare/Medicaid because of the burdensome regulations, and as Obamacare adds millions more patients with "free" coverage (aka going to the MD every time they have a hangnail), are you going to be content with waiting your turn to see the doctor?
We'd still be stuck in 1958 without the federal government's benefits payments for medicare and medicaid. We're in Depression mode again because the total benefits paid out by federal largesse do not create enough liquidity at the bottom to stimulate demand. Unfortunately, giving tax breaks to rich folks like George Romney just sends investment funds overseas -- to China and other low wage, low benefits regimes. Right now the main problem is lack of liquidity at the bottom of the economic spectrum. A healthy rate of inflation might help individuals climb out of debt. Time for some new officials at the top - Bernanke and Geithner could both snicker off to the sidelines and no one would be any poorer as a result.
@ Jimi Hendrix -- I'm not "begging" with or without a healthy diet and medical care.
Hurt has voted to repeal $500 billion in cuts to those programs from the President’s health care law, says Villari. House Republicans "are the only ones who have offered a plan of action and Congressman Hurt has voted on every occasion to preserve Medicare and Medicaid while strengthening these programs for the future,” she says.
Obviously these people are just trying to get press for their opposition to the re-election of Hurt. The rule is any negative press a candidate can get hurts his campaign more than help it.
As long as Hurt supports continuing and expanding Medicare and Medicaid coverage and strengthening these programs in the future, I'm in favor of him. I'd even write speeches for him. We're in crisis mode: we have a liquidity-at-the-bottom crisis, due primarily to gangsters like Mitt Gaffney sending American jobs to China.
How does sending jobs to china change a thing? If ipods were made here it would cost $100 more and people argue that that is good because the 100 bucks stays in america except that they ignore the FACT that that 100 bucks would stay here anyway since instead of paying 100 bucks more for the ipod they would have the cash to spend at a resturant.
Hint: if your job can be accomplished by a nine year old girl then perhaps you need to get a new skill ....
Too many people are abusing medicaid by getting on disability when they are not really hurt and are milking the system..... which shrinks the avialability of money to help the truly disablaed. So we are borrowing money from china to give people with anxiety a couple of grand a month and sending the bill with interest to our grandchildren....
Maybe we need to stop spending all of our resources bailing out the boat and spend a little fixing the hole so we don't have to bail water forever.
"How does sending jobs to china change a thing?"
Well, Bill if you're that far behind there's little anyone here is going to be able to do to educate you.
Dear cookie jar...
The reason jobs were sent out of america is because america and americans charge too much for the work they are performing making products too high in the marketplace. The evidence is undeniable. Honda toyota mercedes benz and bmw all make vehicles here paying 45-75k in salaries because the people had skill and were willing to work for that... meanwhile Detroit looks like an abandoned city in afghanastan because Union workers wanted 75k to start in the parts room. Parts are sourced overseas because labor here is too high. The Unions grew like leeches on every parts manufacturer in he US and bled them dry. New GM cars are 40% foreign content and would be more but obama gave the comapny to the Unions instead of letting it go through a structured bankruptsy and allowing preferred bondholders to have a shot at it like the LAW says....
The bottom line is this... if maytag had not contracted overseas for productions then maytag would have gone bankrupt and the name bought at auction by a chinese company and the only difference would be that maytag would keep no profits here because they would all be sent back to the new owner in china.
I stand behind my statement that if your job can be done by an 11 year old girl you do not have a skill and have no one to blame but yourself when you lose your job.
The unskilled populace on welfare will bring this country to its knees......
"The reason jobs were sent out of america is because america and americans charge too much for the work they are performing making products too high in the marketplace."
The blame on the cost of American labor is also another of the knee jerk responses by right minded thinkers; Do you really think labor in Germany is cheaper than in the US? Their labor force is every bit as expensive if not more so, yet Germany has a higher total dollar amount in exports than the US, and in spite of having a much smaller population and geogrpahical area. American workers have inceredibly high productivity on a global scale.
I would say the blame lies elsewhere. Especially when the cost of American goods and services have not delcined with slave labor in China, pocketed by CEOs, and the unwillingness of this county to come to terms with the horribly inefficient health care system we have.
"Union workers wanted 75k to start in the parts room,"
Oh, and don make up lies like that. No UAW ever expected or got that.
Old Timer.... Germany EXPORTED jobs to the US because we DO have cheaper labor than they do. THe people who work in the mercedes and bmw plants bring in more profits for those companies than if they had to pay high union wages at home. The reason they came here is because 11 year old girls cannot assemble a BMW. Same story different countries and job descriptions.
As for union salaries I stand corrected.... the COST for the company is actually MORE when you factor in outrageous benefits and retiremnt packages... The starting salary is really only $61,880.00 BEFORE benefits are added (29.75 an hour for a trainee in the parts room....)
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-4677571.html
Unions had their place and are outdated, inefficient and a detriment to globalization. I have no problems with a union except one.. if I get together with 1000 unemployed auto guys and aproach GM and offer to replace their workers for 60 cents onm the dollar the federal laws won't allow it because of union protections... That is wrong as it gives a union an unfair monopoly over OTHER AMERICAN WORKERS
Additionally, Unions exploited blacks for a hundred years as they enrollled them for power and dues and then never let them have a decent slot due to the old boys network. Unions are and have been a drag on the economy for the last 40 years as they refuse to compromise in a changing world. Why could we buy steel beams all the way from Japan for half of what pittsburg steel wanted for the exact same spec beam from 40 miles away? Unions insited on too much of the profits and the companies could not modernize and compete so..... Unions caused the downfall.
For paying for our neighbors medical bills for 15 years and taking no lien on his house so when he left it to us in his will, we get $100,000 and Medicaid gets $100.
Exporting American jobs to China and other low wage no benefit manufacturing countries was part and parcel of one of the most adroit monetary crimes in history. Perfectly legal, of course. Exporting American jobs was an attack not just on the American worker but on American prosperity -- and the attack was carried out with malice aforethought by the rich and the super rich top 0.1% of Americans who own most of the companies. Read Chuck Collins, 99 to 1; Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super Rich (for a concise history of the appalling, pointless, near-criminal tax breaks voted for the ultra rich in America); and review del Mar's Barbara Villiers: A History of Monetary Crime. You may then begin to understand how creating a class of super-wealthy individuals diminished prosperity for the rest of us -- ain't it clear yet that from their point of view, we can all go hang -- or get sick and die? Del Mar's short paper on The Greenback Bonds Scandal after the war that mattered gives a clear picture of the financial chicanery that used to pass unremarked before America got some education about monetary matters. Complaining abut Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare is just a smokescreen touched off by people who know nothing much worth repeating about monetary problems and who don't give a darn about American prosperity. What's their alternative plan? ... people should die in the streets?
@ Old Timer -- seems to me the cost of labor is still pretty low in Virginia and some other states. So why, then -- from your point of view -- why don't we see a strong positive flow of investment capital toward manufacturing in Virginia and other low wage states?
@ Bill Marshall -- tell me please, how GM "manufacturing" cars that are 40% foreign parts contributes to American prosperity? What is the percentage of American-manufactured parts in the Hondas made in Marysville, Ohio? How, exactly, does tamping down the hopes and dreams of American workers - and eliminating American jobs from the manufacturing process - contribute to American prosperity? It looked good for a few years, though, didn't it? Companies could get parts cheaper in China. But then it turned out that no money was created by work done to manufacture those parts in America. That's when the American economy, and with it, American prosperity began to collapse. Your thought seems to be aligned with the interests of the rich and the super rich, who encouraged this process of sending American jobs overseas. Sending jobs to China - or to India, as Anthem did recently despite Governor Bob's prohibition - hollows out the American economy. Evidently you support this hollowing out process because it lowers wages in America, and perhaps most of all because it has decreased the influence of the working middle class on politics. But I'm guessing you won't be moving your family to China - or India - any time soon. No matter how low the wages there may be.
We can't keep running 1Trillion in the red every year. We are going to have to cut spending and raise taxes. Neither party wants to do both. As far as free trade, both parties have been for it. We don't want to jump to massive tariffs or massive cuts or massive tax increases at once. I think the plan of both parties is to have the country go bankrupt or go into crisis before they compromise on something.
@SAM - spending that creates jobs, and spending on infrastructure will help recreate prosperity in America. American Prosperity comes from jobs, not from paying Chinese workers a dollar an hour to send us cheap widgets. Every country road in America needs a sidewalk bike path. Starting that project would put a million Americans back to work, and it would also help reduce our total dependence on foreign oil. We're in a Depression -- you didn't notice yet? The main problem is that there's no liquidity at the bottom -- no money for the common man. No jobs. Our lovely politicians helped send American jobs overseas; that benefited the rich but put strong downward pressure on American prosperity and on American wages. Prosperity means a time of high wages and expanding employment -- that's the reverse of what we have now: low ages, expanding unemployment. I guess you maybe don't remember reading about Coxey's Army. But I think "The real pain is yet to come." Time to send Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner home. Their ideas caused the problem and then continued it. The problem is no money at the bottom. The top of the economic spectrum is doing quite well, however: all those vampyre bloodsuckers of the 21st century including Mitt Gaffney, who actually sent quite a few jobs to China. Money spent at the bottom trickles up. Money given to the top goes to China. Or India. Or Malaysia. And comes back here in the form of cheap widgets that send yet more dollars overseas. This type of classic mercantilist attack is always aided and abetted by traitors who want their own country to fail -- as long as they can make plenty of money on the process. Like Mitt Gaffney. Why else would he send so many jobs to China?
Dear CG... I think the basic FACT that you fail to grasp is that wages are determined by the world market. The United states has to compete in that world market. If a company in america was manufacturing toasters at a total wholesale cost on the shelf at a retail store of 15 dollars, and an investor in ANY OTHER COUNTRY made a deal with a manufacturer in the third world so that the wholesale cost to the store would drop to 10 dollars, then that wholesale customer would stop buying american products and buy from the outside investor. So the American manufacturer is now faced with a dilemma, hold his breath and scream "lifes not fair" and go bankrupt, or move the manufacturing portion of his busimness overseas and save the 35% of the employees jobs used here for distribution, accounting, and warranty issues
You are under the false impression that all these jobs were moved overseas because of the base wage price of a factory worker and that is not so. The US guy getting ten and the indonesiain guy getting 1.40 is just the start. Once you go up the chain and the manager is getting 18 here and 2.25 there and the property taxes her are 400k a year vs 1k there, and the 7.6% social security and medicare costs and the 4% workers comp and the 3% unemployment, and the 1.2 million for the EPA mandated design changes, and the higher energy costs etc etc etc simply make it too hard to compete. You want an answer? Here it is....the US needs to manufacture high quality skill dependenat components (which we are already the worlds largest manufacturer of) and stop trying to compete with 11 year old girls who have no choice but to work for a dollar an hour because they need to survive. Trying to "save" those jobs is like someone cutting grass with a sickle after the lawn mower was invented. Progress and automation has brought us to this crossroads. The fact that the leaders of industry make money off of it is irrelevant. Them being rich is good for you because if they didn't make so much money then foriegn companies would simply move in and take the wealth overseas where there would be no US taxes paid.
So we need to get the progessive feel good crap out of the schools and teach the kids how to compete in the world we have instead of the fairytale world liberals "wish" we had.
Besides, it doesn't matter who "owns" the money in the bank as long as it is available to the entrepenur with a good business plan and the gumption to make it work.
As for the "rich" not paying their fair share.. why are you calling someone who pays more taxes in three months then 90% of americans will pay in an entire lifetime a crook?
Warren Buffet may pay a lower "percentage" than his Secretary but she paid 85k in taxes and he paid 18 MILLION in taxes in the same year... (thats 49k a DAY or two THOUSAND bucks an hour)
Besides... if Obama gets his way the money he wants from the "rich" would only fund the country for EIGHT DAYS.
Spending is the problem. The Pentagon pays 600 bucks for a toilet seat and the government gives free housing, medicaid, and food stamps to people driving a Lexus registered in the baby daddys name (who they won't name as the father because it will cost them dearly)
"Warren Buffet may pay a lower "percentage" than his Secretary but she paid 85k in taxes and he paid 18 MILLION in taxes in the same year... (thats 49k a DAY or two THOUSAND bucks an hour) "
Becuase it isn't fair Bill, and it has an even greater impact on her spending and the economy than Warren Buffet's does on him. I don't see why you don't get that. Even Warren knows that only he can buy so many Yachts and houses to keep the economy going. After that, it's just swirl on Wall Street. That's why the economy isn't in good shape. No one really has any more money to spend. Especially since contrary to what you want to fantasize about, sending jobs to China hasn't lowered prices at all. It's just shifted the share of income, other wise why the global widening gap in wealthy versus not wealthy?
Sometimes I think you really just don't have quite the grasp on orthodox economics you think you do. Just like you don't understand all the things Unions actually do, and still can do to alleviate pressures on employers. The cost of sending jobs to unskilled cheap locations has a very high cost, you just can't see it because I feel like you are too caught up in playlist.
Just listen to yourself on the education thing - it must be a liberal thing about feeling good regarding education. Plenty of well educated people in things like CS can't get jobs. Why? Because of liberal feel good policy? No. Because they had to borrow a lot of money to get educated, and they can't work for 30k a year and survive and pay off their debt. Bill Gates doesn't like paying for skill, he wants to import less talented and skilled coders for less money and then put the burden of buying anti-virus/malware/trojan software on the consumer to cover up his slop. You pay more for a poorer quality product. That's a big economic cost, but you can't see it, can you?
Unions had nothing to do with it either, but I am sure you will find a way to blame them.
Caesonia,
1) Under your scenario you are putting forth the hypothosis that Baraack Obama can do more good for the united states with the extra 5 million warren buffet would pay under the buffet rule.than warren buffet could do investing it into the marketplace. (you know like Barack did with Solyndra) You completely ignore the fact that the only reason rich people can get their tax rate lower is because the money is invested in the marketplace and being utilized by others. If they get richer as a result who cares? Barack Obama will use it to rinse through a handfull of beaureucrats so that he can get a few more people free housing or throw a grant so that C-ville can spend 14 million on the Belmont bridge instead of 4 million for a utilitarian one. Meanwhile the private sector is denied working capital to actually start or expand busineses.Rich people do not have vaults of cash they are hoarding.. they NEED it it working for them to get richer.
2) If you don't think that overseas production has lowered prices then how do you explain a 42 inch big screen for 399 dollars? How do you explain 500 dollar lap tops? The jobs were not "sent" overseas. Nobody packed a "job" in a box and sent it overseas. Companies had the same choice as any other person tossed into the water.. sink or swim. Just because some did it premptively does not make them evil. (although I acknowledge evil exists all over)It is no different than a guy moving his business to greene county for lower taxes and less red tape. Thats the nature of business.
3) If you want to start a business and want a loan you need to prove to the bank that your numbers crunch, yet every kid who can get into a college can get a loan with no strings attatched and no business plan and a government bailout (proposed) when they study "ancient lesbian philosophy during the renassance"and then can't find a job. Hence the old joke, "How do you get a grad student to stop hanging around your front porch? (pay him for the pizza!) We are the world leader in all kinds of areas but companies are bringing in workers from other countries because our graduates are either less skilled or value themselves too highly. The amount of debt you owe has nothing to do with what a job pays because a job should only pay what it takes to get that job done by your competitor. If he worked through school and didn't take on debt he can underbid you. That is the way it SHOULD work. He EARNED the job while someone else partied on the weekends.
4) Unions DID make america uncompetitive for the simple reason that they negotiate wages not on what a person will work for but what they think they can milk the company for. So while there may be 10,000 unemployed workers wiling to work at a ford plant for less the company cannot hire them and if the company makes a huge profit the union fights for its share of the profits even though there are still 10,000 guys who would gladly take their jobs at 60 cents on the dollar.(the laws protect the union from competition) So because the union has a stranglehold the comapany cannot modernize to compete and the whole thing goes under just like happened to hundreds of plants across the country. Unions got greedy and are now paying the price. Garbage men in new york make 100k a year. Civil service unions have created an unaccountable bloated overpaid bearuacracy that has brought us to our knees. (here is another joke... Do you know how many people work for the US government ? (about half... the rest are sitting at their desk playing Farmvile on facebook)
and Microsoft made more millioniares by creating something that helped make the world go round. The only millionaires Obama has made so far are he bandits from Solyundra, some Union leaders at GM and some contractors building high speed rails that will never be used enough to justify their existence.
Meanwhile we still have people going to work everyday while their neighbor sits at home watching their free cable and eating cheetos bought with their EBT card... (I am sure if we taxed the rich more THAT would change? )
@ bill marshall - Re: the $600 toilet seat myth, here's a conservative blog explaining the economics of it and painting the original story as a fabrication of the "liberal media."
http://conservativenewjersey.com/how-a-toilet-seat-can-cost-600
b17,
I could have pointed to the 100 billion missing and unaccounted for iraq which isn't a myth.
The point is that the government is as bloated as Elvis on his last birthday and everyone is drinking from the trough (including the middle class who get their kids educated to the tune of 16k per year per kid and get subsidized college loans and mortgage deductions) but instead of fixing the spending they want to attack the people who are already paying 80% of the bills to pay more. I have no problems with making them pay more... I just don't want them to pay more so Obama can "spread it around" to people who want to sit at home and complain or who want to get a grant to go to grad school for a non existent job. America needs to grow up and be responsible with the money they already get.
Ray Charles can see the government waste and he's six feet underground.
Just getting the rich and especially the super rich to pay tax at the same rate the rest of us pay would be taking a long step toward re-establishing prosperity in America. They paid lobbyists and politicians for their tax breaks -- a crooked, dishonest process if ever there was one.
@ vill Marshall -- evidently you believe it's a great idea that the rich and the super rich pay next to no tax at all on their income -- and that Mitt Gaffney can squirrel away his wealth and his dividends in the Cayman Islands. And it is great for the rich -- but not for American prosperity. Your way of thinking amounts to an apology for robbing the rest of us blind -- and on top of that, you'd like to tell us we're actually better off because we've been robbed. That's kind of a creepy point of view, but you're welcome to it.
Would a 1 cent sales tax on $1 on everything for everybody lower the debt from 1 Trillion to ? (say 800 Billion) Then say reduce spending to 600 Billion in 1 year or the sales tax goes to 2 cents. Then 400 Billion or it goes to 3 cents. (All this assumes a 1 cent sales tax would raise 200 Billion, I just don't know that). I know a sales tax is regressive but everybody would pay it and there would be no deductions.
Christian... YOU are entitled to exactly the same tax breaks as any rich person is. If you buy stock and receive a dividend (which virtually anyone with a 401k does) the dividends are taxed at a lower rate as "passive" income. Taxing it at full throttle would mean you had to earn more for retirement to have the same net.
If Romeny sells a multi million dollar building and makes a profit of 5 million dollars, and buys another building for more money then he is under the tax law ,able to defer some of the tax due until he sells the second building. This is done to encourage people to buy and sell buildings and put them to better use. So if Crutchfields owns a building worth two million that they bought for 500k 20 years ago and they want to expand and buy a much larger building and create some more jobs you are saying that the government is entitled to 50% (fed and state ) of the 1.5 million dollar profit and they need to start fresh with a new mortgage. Well common sense says that if the government allows them to "defer" the taxes until they sell the next building ) (or parlay it into an even larger building which creates MORE jobs) then that is in the public interest and here is why.:
1) if the tax is that brutal they won't expand
2) the government benefits from the sale because of transfer taxes and increased property taxes on the new building.
3) jobs created in the new building.
4) jobs either created or sustained designing, building, permitting, supplying materials, bankers surveyors, apprasiers lawyers truck drivers, lunch trucks, garbagemen etc etc
5) freeing up space for a smaller business who wants to expand into their old space and create some more jobs.
6) freeing up space from THAT persons small shop for a startup to move into with money they borrow from a bank in the cayman islands where an american parked his money for a better return (and did pay all taxes on it in the US)
It is in the interest of america to create these "loopholes" which really are "incentives" to put your money at risk rather than spend it. (if he does not invest it he pays the HIGHEST tax rate on any money he does not reinvest. which is close to 50%) so if he is paying 50% he will simply stop taking any risk like is occurring as we speak because NOBODY has any faith in Obama.
As for the money in the caymans or switzerland.... it is all declared and it is there for a better return because they pay a higher interest rate or dividend... but that money might just be loaned to an american to start a business just like bank of america loans money to people in foreign countries.
You keep ignoring two facts
1) mitt romney paid 6.5 MILLION dollars in taxes in one year.... more money than most americans MAKE in a lifetime. That sounds like a "fair " amount for one guy.
2) The tax increase you propose will feed the government belly for only EIGHT DAYS. Where are you going to get the rest of the money?
@sam -- a sales tax on all transfers and transactions, including between corporations and "wholesale" transactions, yes, that would work handily. Inflation, at this point, seems an easier route - makes it easier for the debtors to repay, makes it less likely they will default, and makes it less likely the economy will crash. To keep our currency in a steady state while the rest of the world inflates its money supply amounts to de facto deflation, which makes debts harder to repay. And that just doesn't work well for American prosperity.
@ Bill Marshall -- you're all about decreasing taxes on the wealthy, and I think that's part of the process that has bankrupted American government from the school board districts, through municipal governments, state governments and on up to the Federal level. Your notion that the super rich should pay tax on their income at a lower rate than their secretaries or firefighters pay because they would then pay "so much" or "too much" or because they "already pay enough" is a particularly revolting and repugnant point of view whose implementation has concentrated American wealth - the fruit of our wonderful industrialized democratic republic - in the hands of the top 0.1% of the population over the last sixty years. "We are the 99.9%" is a fair statement; and the question that naturally attaches is: what kind of rabid partisan thinks the rest of us so idiotic and ill-informed that he hopes repeating the shibboleths of the rich will persuade the rest of us to believe that letting the super rich and their corporations get off scot-free will enhance American prosperity?
@Bill Marshall - I am particularly taken with your notion that because "mitt romney paid 6.5 MILLION dollars in taxes in one year.... more money than most americans MAKE in a lifetime. That sounds like a "fair " amount for one guy." But I can't decide which part I like more -- your notion that allowing Romney to pay tax on his income at a lower rate than that paid by most American home owners, and most secretaries and firefighters -- is darn good idea -- or the notion that ROMNEY PAID MORE IN TAX FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION THAN MOST AMERICANS WILL PAY IN THEIR LIFETIMES. The nobility in Russia and France also enjoyed this same type of enormous disparity in income ... as long as their citizens would allow it. But why you think America should elect a president who won't show his relevant tax returns, probably hides income overseas, and was born with a silver spoon up his ear, I can't quite figure out. There's no logic to your message: I say, let all taxpaying Americans, and American corporations pay tax on their income, no matter from what source derived, at the same rate. Scrap all the loopholes that the lobbyists arranged for the super rich and the corporations. Scrap all taxes on food produced and consumed in America, and all taxes on medical services including drugs. If the corporations and the super rich don't want to pay at the same rate as the rest of us -- then let them relocate. Allowing the tax code to produce a small class of ultra-rich citizens has impoverished the rest of us - by comparison. It bankrupted our public schools in many cities, or lowered the quality of education provided. That you approve of these results -- indeed, that you applaud them, and wish them to continue -- indicates the feeble ratiocination of a paltry mind.
Mitt Gaffney, Mitt Gaffney -- you do make us laffney!
First off, I have never advocated for lowering taxes on the rich, I even said ian increase ts ok as long as the money gets spent wisely instead of given to crybabies who don't know how good they have it. You keep harping on "percentages" of income instead of actual cash paid. Romney pays a butload of "cash" to help the country run. You can pull at heartstrings by saying firefighter pays higher taxes but the fact of the matter is that a firefighter is just a guy with a job. You can call them noble because they take risks.. Coalminers take risks. Tree climbers take risks. They get a paycheck and pay the same rate as everyone else who gets the same paycheck. I would imagine the Firechief in New York males a half a million bucks should we bow to him too? The facts are clear... if you think Obama can do more for the economy with warren buffets money then warren buffet can then vote for him.
As for your petty jealousy of the rich that is what is repugnant... it does not matter who has money deposted in the bank as long as the citizens have access to it to borrow to use to make a pile of money for themselves. You also once again ignore the fact that if bill gates wanted to keep his money as cash to spend instead of reinvesting it he would pay a much higher rate. Higher than a firefighter...... but because he chooses to reinvest it in the marketplace where IT CREATES JOBS the government allows a lower rate. It is simply good business. It worked fine until the government got bloated and spent the money on all kinds of waste every few years and then we had to regroup.
And your assertion that we need to inflate our currency to reduce the debt is flat out stealing from anyone who didn't get into debt and has cash in the bank for retirement.
You know... the retired firefighters on a fixed income....
You need to let go of your petty jealousy and look at the big picture. The government needs to stop spending its allowance on movies and popcorn before it gets an increase on the premise that it needs textbooks for school...........
Here is how france is handling their problem with revenue...
lets see how it works out for them...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow...
@ bill marshall -- no jealousy of the rich at my house, we're doing quite well thank you. However, I do believe that the rich can pay taxes on their income, no matter from what source derived, at the same rate that is paid by their secretaries and by firefighters. Various theories have been advanced by lobbyists over the years for lowering taxes on the rich, with the result that taxes on the rich and the super rich are now at the lowest point in the last 50 years. It's easy to believe that "investment" stimulates the economy, but in fact "demand" stimulates the economy. At present, unfortunately, we have a liquidity crisis at the bottom of the economy -- wages are far too low to create the kind of demand that will cause production to rise. The adverse effect on the economy of wages being too low in the aggregate was concealed, for a while, by the importation of goods from low wage, no benefits economies like China, a process that further sabotaged American prosperity. Now, in 2012, the rich and the super rich are more prosperous than ever before -- it's time for them to pay tax on their income at the same rate paid by the middle class. And you may as well quit whinging about how individual rich folks like Mitt Gaffney pay actually "quite a lot" of tax on their income. The point is that they pay tax on their income at rates ranging from half to a quarter of the rates paid by firefighters and secretaries -- and sometimes pay nothing at all. See The Tax Evaders Wall of Shame at the link below, and note that Mr. Phonehacker's NewsCorp paid no tax on its US income last year.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/apr/10/t...
You are still hung up on percentages which are a red herring. Warren Buffet pays 10,000 dollars an hour to live and do business in america and you still want more?
You actually believe that Barack Obama can do more with the 5 million that he wants out of Buffet than Buffet can? That is INSANE.
You still haven't said what you would do about the other 357 days that would be left since taxing the rich would only bring in eight days of expenditures.
You just want to make life your version of "fair" like a spoiled child who wants a trophy even though his team lost.
Why don't we take all the straight A students and give them Cs and take the balance and give it to the kids who got "fs" so college will be fair?
I have no probems with closing loopholes and even adjusting tax rates, but I will not vote for it until the spending is brought under control be it the pentagon or the food stamp program.
It simply does not matter who "owns" the deposits in the bank as long as you have a fair shot at borrowing the money.
By constantly attacking the rich as if they are evil you are simply showing your jealousy for not being as successful as them. The rich took no money out of your mouth. It is not the rich who will take your house if you don't pay the taxes. It is not the rich who will arrest you if you don't pay them for their "services" (taxes)
If you plant an apple orchard and after a dozen years it yeieds apples why should you not be able to call the expense of the trees, the land, the pesticides, the farmhand, the tractor, the truck , the advertising expenses and write them off against the amount you finally got for the apples in the 12th year when you finally got a crop worth selling? So you collect 100k, write off 80k and keep 20k which puts you in a lower bracket than a firefighter. Is the farmer a jerk now too? If not then you need to multiply the numbers and if a farm collects a million bucks and buys 980k worth of equipment to expand then he is in the same bracket... is he NOW a jerk?
If you think taxes are not an impediment to business then YOU explain why there is two trillion dollar sitting on the sidelines. Until Obama and his "spread the wealth" attutude is gone these people will not take the risks we need to jump start the economy. Why would anyone try and build something if the government is just going to sieze half the profits for doing nothing.
"you are still hung up on percentages which are a red herring."
Huh. Now that's interesting. I've read some of your posts over time, and I think you like to focus on business needs and even talk about basic ROI in this very thread. You have tried to point out the dangers of taking a loan, which has a percentage in interest, versus what you get in return.
Now suddenly percentage is a red herring? Really? a 6% return versus a 7% return is a red herring? How convenient.
Spreading the wealth or not has nothing to do with the huge tax subsidy given to those who make their livings by investment income versus earned income. There is absolutely nothing to justify such preferential treatment except that those who profit by it think they are entitled to it. I am willing to bet you make most of your money in that way, and feel entitled. I have news for you, you aren't. Your claims about vreating jobs is just malarky, because recent evidence shows it just isn't true.
Mitt Gaffney will rob from the middle class to finance tax cuts for the super rich, according to an analysis by John Cassidy in the New Yorker, which indicates that Gaffney's tax "plan would leave wealthy Americans considerably better off. According to the three economists who authored the report, those lucky folks earning a million dollars a year would end up taking home an extra eighty-seven thousand dollars in income. By contrast, taxpayers earning under two hundred thousand dollars a year [most of the rest of us] would be hit with a tax increase of five hundred dollars. And those figures are calculated on the assumption that a Romney administration would eliminate many of the tax loopholes enjoyed by the rich. If that didn’t happen, the report says, a Romney Administration would have to take even more money from ordinary Americans."
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/08/the-truth-abou...
@ bill marshall ... still nattering away about the "idle poor" and their EBT cards, are you? while supportin Mitt Gaffney's scofflaw approach to paying tax on his income .....
karl mark and christian... lets talk percentages if you want...
The average middle class homeowner pays about 30 percent of their income in mortage interest which is a tax writeoff. If they make 100,000 dollars and pay 30,000 in mortgage payments then they are taxed on 70.000 dollars . If you then add in the basic deductions etc they get down to about 50k. So if they are taxed about 15,000 in taxes they have an "effective rate" of 15%. (on the 100,000) If you add in the 12,000 in healthcare their employer pays for them that they recieve tax free then they are paying 15,000 on a gross of 112,000 which equates to a 13.3 percent tax rate.
Are you willing to give up these massive deductions or do you think that if people lose them they will have no money to open a business or a college fund. ?
Here is a link to how California is responsibly handling their revenue needs.They already have the second highest taxes in the nation but they figrured out a way to raise funds that I am sure christian and karl would think was perfect.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/08/08/california-school-distri...
I made 42K gross (so that is either lower middle class or middle class, that is subjective). I paid 4.5K (standard deduction so no mortgage deduction) so that was 10.7% tax and another 1.7K and .6K for Social Security and medicare or 2.3K or 5 % . I have a small house and vacant lot so the City gets over 2K+ a year or about another 5+%. Virginia got close to 2K or another 5%
Ponce De Leon what has the mortgage tax deduction have to do with it? People earning a living off of investments can take advantage of that as well. So what, some trust fund couple with a couple of kids who have an income of 70k a year off of investments can now pay 6%? I think the point that investment income gets special status is the point. Just because someone runs a small electrical business doesn't mean they should have to pay a far higher tax rate in their income versus someone just stirring the pot and skimming. The horrible financial crisis is a result of such stupidity.
and also remember that if you are a renter and the landlord could not write off his property taxes and mortgage interest he would have to add it to the rent because if he couldn't recoup it with higher rent than no one would build an apartment complex.
Some tax loopholes are GOOD for society.
Dear Ponce - don't matter what the rate is as long as everyone pays the same rate on all their income, no matter how derived. the super rich have been hogging the harvest for so long you got used to it, can't see any other way of doing business, and by golly even think you have to like licking them boots or the scraps they might leave for such as you.
So christian.. should we just have a flat tax rate without any deductions for anybody? Everybody just pays a flat tax so that the 47% of americans who don't pay any taxon their income now have to pay that tax rate?
and should the people receiving free income via food stamps rent subsidies, free school lunches, pell grants, medicare and scholarships be taxed accordingly or are those tax "loopholes" created to help keep the economy healthy "good ones" since they don't benefit mean old rich people?
Even if you were able to tax the rich as much as you fantasize about the government would only redistibute it to people who make less than the middle class and so while the middle class like you are looking up to see the giant gap between you and bill gates, the lazy slob next door is ignoring the truck driving school commercials while watching Springer laughing at how he gets 90% of what you get for doing nothing and you are still dumb enough to feel sorry for him and fight for more.
The middle clas should be mad at the deadbeats who milk the system and a president who wants to save the world by writing checks he can't cash.
Obama is like the episode of Seinfeld where jerry wanted a rental car and despite the reservation there was no car.. Obama knows how to "make" the promise he just doesn't know how to "keep" the promise,,, which is after all the most important part of the promise.
Besides that you still haven't said what you would do for the other 357 days since the tax on the rich would only cover 8 days of expenditures if you got your way.....
So address that.....
@ bill You're mad about "the deadbeats" ... I'm mad at the rich deadbeats who get the tax benefits that bankrupted the American economy under the guise of "creating jobs." Generally speaking, people who are mad about the "deadbeats" love Rush Limbaugh and believe most of the propaganda they hear on his channel. As for me, I don't know any deadbeats these days -- even most of the very poor folk on my mail route out in Keswick had jobs .... but I have known plenty of millionaires. You vote for Mitt Gaffney all you want -- you'll vote for him several times, I hope. I preferred the Herminator. And Goldwater. My opinion is that the Gaffney-man leaves us laughing -- he's this year's Sarah Palin - though he can't shoot a moose. I will admit, though, that Mr. Gaffney can string one lie after another together with an adroit smile ... according to PolitiFact's analysis:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/...
why is he called Gaffney instead of Romney, I must be missing out on some inside joke.
Which "rich" deadbeat are you talking about? Mitt romney? The one who invested in Staples when it was months away from bankruptcy and now employs 80,000 people?
Or Obama who invested 500 MILLION dollars in Solyndra when Bain capital and all the others declined to get involveda nd they went bankrupt but not before paying off the Obama donors two weeks before?
Or perhaps you are referring to Mark Zuckerberg who started in a dorm room at a private university and now is responsioble for billions of dollars worth of commerce? Is he the deadbeat?
Or perhaps you hate GE who employs over 100,000 americans and while it was able to zero out its corporate tax liability it still paid millions in all kinds of other taxes and fees?
Or perhaps you hate the greedy people at the post office who made unreasonable demands,work rules and protections driving it into bankruptcy as we speak.
When are you going to give an answer as to where the other 357 days of money will come from since raising taxes on the rich will only pay for eight days of government spending?
48% of the current deficit derives from tax cuts for the rich and the super rich. Wages need to go up. Prosperity means rising wages and plenty of work. Pouring money on the top - the Bushwa plan -- obviously didn't work well.
The lying Mattress tells all:
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/the-welfare-gambit/
and expects Americans like Bill M to believe him. And they do! And they do! And they do!
@Bill -- 50 years of criminally absurd tax breaks for the rich and the super rich, adequately documented in Lundeberg's book The Rich and the Super Rich have, indeed, dug a pretty big hole for America. Sending manufacturing jobs to China - auto parts, batteries, computers, my daughter's blessed iPhone -- turns out to have been a very bad idea. That bad idea, which the Lying Mattress supported at every opportunity, amounted to a mercantilist attack on America. The cheap widgets covered up the loss of jobs ... for a while. Right now, because of downward pressure on wages, the American economy suffers from a liquidity crisis - at the bottom of the economic spectrum. Put simply, Americans don't make enough money to buy anything but ... canned peaches from China. That's good news for the peach pickers in China -- and the Lying Mattress made plenty of money on sending our jobs over there. Unfortunately, it has been very bad news for Americans. Dismantling Medicare and Social Security as Rep. Ryan wants to do would be another prime disaster -- for Americans. I can't wait for the TV debates if the Mattress and Ryan will dare to appear.