The Republican Mythology

[Stinger]

Republicans "know" so much that isn't so, and you've heard a lot of it about the economy, the recovery, taxes, and the "fiscal cliff" -- i.e. the austerity bomb.

Here's a great article debunking many of the things the delusionists will go to their graves believing, no matter how much proof their is to the contrary.


10 Things Republicans Don't Want You to Know About the Fiscal Cliff

Preview: (Warning: Spoiler Alert) 1. The Republicans' "Job Creators" Don't Create Jobs

And there's 9 more.

[billy.pilgrim]

I tried too, I reckon they can't defend their bs




http://blueridgedebate.com/phpBB3/viewt ... ?f=3&t=410


2. Wealth accumulation has been rigged for the rich.

The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of non-home wealth. For Americans with incomes over $10 million, nearly half of their income comes from capital gains and dividends, on most of which they pay only a 15% tax. From 2002 to 2007, two-thirds of all income went to the richest 1%. Then, in the first year after the recession, a startling 93% of all new income went to the richest 1%.


And verde was the only response to this thread

And there were 0 responses to the thread below

Maybe this is why we can’t have those so called civil discussions scooter was whining about. Here we hold major republic values up to the light and find them full of holes and not one cons steps in defend their wholy world

http://blueridgedebate.com/phpBB3/viewt ... ?f=3&t=363


1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.
According to both Marketwatch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds.

3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans.
The Tax Justice Network estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that's $8 to $12 trillion in U.S. money stashed in far-off hiding places.
Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion

10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.
That's about the same amount of money made by America's richest 10% in one year. But we all paid for the bailout. And because of it, we lost the opportunity for jobs, mortgage relief, and educational funding.
Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S.
The world derivatives market is estimated to be worth over a quadrillion dollars (a thousand trillion). At least $200 trillion of that is in the United States. In 2011 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reported a trading volume of over $1 quadrillion on 3.4 billion annual contracts.
A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO.


It's not surprising that the very rich would like to fudge the numbers, as they have the nation.

[neoplacebo]

I can't help but notice how none of them have Rushed to the defense of any of this tripe. They must all be at a meeting or something.

[Stinger]

I can't help but notice how none of them have Rushed to the defense of any of this tripe. They must all be at a meeting or something.

To have that a religious faith so strong that their cherished beliefs are impervious to mountains of facts, you must spend time communing with the gods.

They're off listening to Fox again.

[billy.pilgrim]

come on scooter, let's have that discussion you seem to want

links are to all manner of destruction of basic conservative beliefs, can you defend the cons or does your silence indicated that you can't

[Supsalemgr]

It really doesn't impact the libs with any logic when it comes to the economy. This your boy's deal now. Let's see how it works out. We will retain our core beliefs.

[Bungalow Bill]

They've really gotten a lot of mileage out of the raising the top marginal tax rates will
hurt the job creators and raise UE. Now that that's been pretty much shown to be a
fairy tale, folks know they aren't interested in job creation, they just want to help out
their well off buddies.

[billy.pilgrim]

in the 40% with rates at 94% and the economy grew and republicon debt was paid down

in the 60s with rates still well over 70% our economy was strong and our middle class was the greatest in the world

but starting in 1980, the republicon class war against the middle class has been at full throttle and look what has happened

the facts don't lie - faux news does





http://flaglerlive.com/26685/gc-fdr-and-taxes/

When Income Was Taxed at 94%: How FDR Tackled Debt and Reckless Republicans

Roosevelt’s relentless campaign to cap top incomes kept that debate focused on taxing the rich. Conservatives didn't want to do that taxing. They wanted a national sales tax, as do many conservatives today. But FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never let that regressive sales tax notion get traction.


The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.
Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal taxes.

[Stinger]

It really doesn't impact the libs with any logic when it comes to the economy. This your boy's deal now. Let's see how it works out. We will retain our core beliefs.

You said nothing.

The pubs on this forum know jack shit about the economy. Every time one of you three stooges or any other con has opened your mouth about the economy, you got your ass handed back to you on a silver platter.

Any time you want to discuss the economy instead of just flapping your ass, let me know.

You will retain your core beliefs because all you have is your beliefs. The facts are against you AND your beliefs.

[neoplacebo]

It really doesn't impact the libs with any logic when it comes to the economy. This your boy's deal now. Let's see how it works out. We will retain our core beliefs.

Aren't you the America hater that admitted to gladly paying 5 or 6 dollars a gallon for gasoline as long as Obama was voted out? And you come out talking about how libs don't understand economics? Fucking brilliant; you must have made a career of hiding in plain sight. Dumbass.

[billy.pilgrim]

It really doesn't impact the libs with any logic when it comes to the economy. This your boy's deal now. Let's see how it works out. We will retain our core beliefs.

so tell me about the American dream and the revered 1% who are the benevolent job creators for the poor incapable rest of us, in light of the following facts


1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.
According to both Marketwatch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds.

[Supsalemgr]

So what? I am not concerned with how the 1% accumulated their wealth. If they have not been convicted of any crimes we must accept their wealth came from legitimate means. So tell me why these folks are not entitled to their wealth?

[neoplacebo]

So what? I am not concerned with how the 1% accumulated their wealth. If they have not been convicted of any crimes we must accept their wealth came from legitimate means. So tell me why these folks are not entitled to their wealth?

Where have any of us said the rich aren't "entitled" to their wealth? That must be something you imagined while pumping six dollar per gallon gasoline on your hate tour. The issue is paying their fair share in taxes. That is what they are "entitled" to and have not been getting lo these past eleven years or so. I suppose by the same token, you're not concerned with how the poor became poor, but I bet you sure think they are "entitled" to their poverty. Hilarious.

[billy.pilgrim]

So what? I am not concerned with how the 1% accumulated their wealth. If they have not been convicted of any crimes we must accept their wealth came from legitimate means. So tell me why these folks are not entitled to their wealth?

sorry, I thought you were one of the ones who elevated these almost mythical job creators above such peon things as paying taxes/tribute for the benefit of the elite

but now I understand, you believe in feudalism

[Supsalemgr]

They are creating a lot more jobs than the poor. Those who are not entreprenuers are investors and the funds they invest go to entities that use the funds to create jobs. I realize libs do not accept this concept. So be it.

[billy.pilgrim]

They are creating a lot more jobs than the poor. Those who are not entreprenuers are investors and the funds they invest go to entities that use the funds to create jobs. I realize libs do not accept this concept. So be it.

I guess you didn't read, or maybe didn't understand, "2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds."

or maybe you just responded to something that was never said. I don't remember saying anything about the poor creating jobs, but the study did find that the poor do as well as the rich when it comes to "creating"

production and jobs come from the middle class as a result of consumer demand

[Supsalemgr]

So what? I am not concerned with how the 1% accumulated their wealth. If they have not been convicted of any crimes we must accept their wealth came from legitimate means. So tell me why these folks are not entitled to their wealth?

Because enormous semi-monarchical disparities in wealth, often inherited rather than earned, are not consistent with democracy. We choose democracy and the work ethic, you don't.

What is the problem with a family keeping their wealth within the family? I have four grandchildren and sure as hell want them to receive any leftover wealth I have when I meet my Maker than to have it sent to Washington. Make it optional and all the libs can designate their leftover wealth to the government than to heirs. Ready to sign on Vrede?

[Supsalemgr]

My wealth is "mine" and I have paid taxes on it. Why should I not be able to direct where it goes? That is our basic disagreement. I do not believe the government has a right to my property if I have paid all applicable taxes.

[Supsalemgr]

What is democratic about confiscation of private property? I suspect the founding fathers would agree with me on that point.

[billy.pilgrim]

It might be democratic or not, you are confusing issues. What is clearly not democratic are enormous semi-monarchical disparities in wealth. You prefer birthright over democracy and the work ethic, we've settled that. Care to address:

"It's an erroneous concept. Jobs are created by consumers, entrepreneurs just take advantage of the demand. And, the poor put a greater proportion, often 100%, of their income into consumption thus creating more jobs per dollar "invested" in them. You know this from your own field - a rich person may buy somewhat fancier insurance, but it's still just one policy, whereas that same income divided amongst the less well off will buy hundreds or thousands of policies."

suckermanager has been quite clear that he prefers a feudal society where wealth and poverty are handed down from generation to generation. I'm not sure where he got the idea that the founders would approve of his preference of rule by the wealthy; maybe he was dropped on his head as a child - ya reckon?
what else could have cause his disdain for the ideas of Jefferson and Madison