Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize So...

Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security

There are 2024 comments on the Fox News story from Aug 19, 2012, titled Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security. In it, Fox News reports that:

FILE: Aug. 18, 2012: Vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan speaks to a crowd at Lake Sumter Landing Market Square in The Villages, Fla.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#1620 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, lets play your game.
In 1938 the income tax was increased to 90%. Revenues increased from $6.5 Bil in 1940 to 43.7 Bil in 1944. That would be a 572% increase in five years.
Reagan cut taxes and revenues went from 599.3 Bil in 1981 to 1.091 Tril in 1992. A 92% increase over 12 years.
Clinton increased taxes and revenues went from 1.091 Tril in 1992 to 2.025 Tril in 2000. An increase of 86% over 8 years.
bush cut taxes and revenues went from 1.991 in 2001 to 2.105 in 2009. An increase of 5% over 8 years.
Nothing beats the tax increase to 90% in 1938 for increasing revenue. And look at all the growth we had not just from 1940 to 1944, but all the way to 1960 before President Kennedy started ruining with his tax cut.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displ...
There is no link of correlation between tax rates, revenues and growth. NONE, NADA, ZILCH in our history.
And if you really want the truth, look at the middle data columns that show the data in constant dollars.
Damn you and your facts! You realize that documented facts have no place in the Retardicans Teabagged world.. It makes them sweaty and nervous.

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#1621 Oct 12, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Republsicums War on Women Ryan: "some girls rape easy"
Oh yeah, Paul I Hate Women Ryan wants to make sure that women cannot abort a fetus that is killing them. That way the POS can gleefully watch both fetus and woman die.
All Republsicums are filth.
OK, so where does the revenue come from?
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1622 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, lets play your game.
In 1938 the income tax was increased to 90%. Revenues increased from $6.5 Bil in 1940 to 43.7 Bil in 1944. That would be a 572% increase in five years.
Reagan cut taxes and revenues went from 599.3 Bil in 1981 to 1.091 Tril in 1992. A 92% increase over 12 years.
Clinton increased taxes and revenues went from 1.091 Tril in 1992 to 2.025 Tril in 2000. An increase of 86% over 8 years.
bush cut taxes and revenues went from 1.991 in 2001 to 2.105 in 2009. An increase of 5% over 8 years.
Nothing beats the tax increase to 90% in 1938 for increasing revenue. And look at all the growth we had not just from 1940 to 1944, but all the way to 1960 before President Kennedy started ruining with his tax cut.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displ...
There is no link of correlation between tax rates, revenues and growth. NONE, NADA, ZILCH in our history.
And if you really want the truth, look at the middle data columns that show the data in constant dollars.
Do you think a war economy had anything to do with it? Me,too.
Okay let's play your game.

The Revenue Act of 1932 raised United States tax rates across the board, with the rate on top incomes rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15 percent. The provisions of the act applied to the taxable year of 1932 and all subsequent taxable years. According to you those tax increases should have ended the Great depression yet they did not and 1937 was a depression within a depression.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1623 Oct 12, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn you and your facts! You realize that documented facts have no place in the Retardicans Teabagged world.. It makes them sweaty and nervous.


And then they destroy the claim with better facts and more logical explanations.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1624 Oct 12, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
If Romney takes the helm its full speed ahead.. Staight in the iceberg. He will finish off what Bush started and it won't be pretty... He cares nothing for the people of this country, not that Obama is Mother Teresa.


Romney gave more to charity in one year than both Obama and Biden combined did in five years.

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#1625 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney gave more to charity in one year than both Obama and Biden combined did in five years.
He also made more... And that is his word. Which isn't worth much.

Since: Apr 12

Englewood, CO

#1626 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney gave more to charity in one year than both Obama and Biden combined did in five years.
And if he did money to charity does not make my statement untrue.. Shutting down companies,sending their jobs overseas, and putting people out of work is very telling.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1627 Oct 12, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
He also made more... And that is his word. Which isn't worth much.


And the word of PriceWaterhouse Coopers accounting firm. Apparently he is more successful at what he does than either Obama or Biden which is why so many unions and left wing organizations have billions of dollars invested in Bain Capital. If you prefer to follow a loser, vote for Obama in 2012.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1628 Oct 12, 2012
Son of SickNTired wrote:
<quoted text>
And if he did money to charity does not make my statement untrue.. Shutting down companies,sending their jobs overseas, and putting people out of work is very telling.


Go easy on Barack Obama .I mean if your total business credentials consist of being a community organizer than one would expect that person to be inexperienced and constantly screw up in an economic sense and he has.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1629 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, lets play your game.
In 1938 the income tax was increased to 90%. Revenues increased from $6.5 Bil in 1940 to 43.7 Bil in 1944. That would be a 572% increase in five years.
As you have so artfully pointed out, the onset of World War II led to a further increase in tax rates and a significant increase in tax revenue. What you conveniently failed to mention was the fact that the vast bulk of the population was required to pay income taxes when they previously had not. Before World War II, the federal income tax had been a very limited tax. On the eve of war fewer than 14 percent of workers even filed returns. By the end of the war, three-quarters of all workers did, which means over five times more Americans were filing returns. Now that is the real reason that tax revenue increased so dramatically.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1630 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think a war economy had anything to do with it? Me,too.
Okay let's play your game.
The Revenue Act of 1932 raised United States tax rates across the board, with the rate on top incomes rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15 percent. The provisions of the act applied to the taxable year of 1932 and all subsequent taxable years. According to you those tax increases should have ended the Great depression yet they did not and 1937 was a depression within a depression.
Apparently you missed this from my other post:

"There is no link of correlation between tax rates, revenues and growth. NONE, NADA, ZILCH in our history."

Now, having said that can you still justify your statement concerning me, taxes and the Great Depression?

BTW: The 60s and the 00s were also war years, where are the great tax revenue increases?

So why do you persist with this bogus, waste-of-time talk trying to say lower is better? You know what is better? Paying for the things you receive is much better. And if you have to do it with taxes, at least partially as we did between 1938 and 1961, then so be it.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1631 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
And then they destroy the claim with better facts and more logical explanations.
Where? When?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1632 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney gave more to charity in one year than both Obama and Biden combined did in five years.
The vast mqajority goes to his church. The rest goes to the Chinese and other places where he relocates our jobs.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1633 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the word of PriceWaterhouse Coopers accounting firm. Apparently he is more successful at what he does than either Obama or Biden which is why so many unions and left wing organizations have billions of dollars invested in Bain Capital. If you prefer to follow a loser, vote for Obama in 2012.
In 2007 the five top executives at Lehman Bros made over $500,000,000. They were very successful as well. Being successful and being good for the nation may well be two different things.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1634 Oct 12, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have so artfully pointed out, the onset of World War II led to a further increase in tax rates and a significant increase in tax revenue. What you conveniently failed to mention was the fact that the vast bulk of the population was required to pay income taxes when they previously had not. Before World War II, the federal income tax had been a very limited tax. On the eve of war fewer than 14 percent of workers even filed returns. By the end of the war, three-quarters of all workers did, which means over five times more Americans were filing returns. Now that is the real reason that tax revenue increased so dramatically.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html
There were 6,000,000 in the military, maybe more. Did they pay income taxes? What percentage of the workforce would that be?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1635 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The right is fond of claiming how much INCOME tax the wealthy pay. But INCOME taxes only make up about 49% of government revenues. What happens to their percentage when SOCIAL SECURITY taxes are thrown in to the mix? What happens when "CAPITAL GAINS" taxes are separated from INCOME taxes?
Could it be the wealthy don't pay their share?
Yes, Romney pays 9% income tax rate on $13M of passive income.

Even millionaires who work for a living say that is ridiculous.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#1636 Oct 12, 2012
Under Ryan, Romney would pay a 0.82% income tax rate on $21 M of passive income.

Romney thinks that is TOO MUCH and wants to pay ZERO income tax rate while lording it over the middle class who pays his bills.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1637 Oct 12, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you missed this from my other post:
"There is no link of correlation between tax rates, revenues and growth. NONE, NADA, ZILCH in our history."
Now, having said that can you still justify your statement concerning me, taxes and the Great Depression?
BTW: The 60s and the 00s were also war years, where are the great tax revenue increases?
So why do you persist with this bogus, waste-of-time talk trying to say lower is better? You know what is better? Paying for the things you receive is much better. And if you have to do it with taxes, at least partially as we did between 1938 and 1961, then so be it.


Of course there is a link between lower tax rates and more tax revenue and your example to support your claim was shown to be erroneous and totally misleading.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1638 Oct 12, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
Under Ryan, Romney would pay a 0.82% income tax rate on $21 M of passive income.
Romney thinks that is TOO MUCH and wants to pay ZERO income tax rate while lording it over the middle class who pays his bills.
Obama is going down!!
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1639 Oct 12, 2012
OregonSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Romney pays 9% income tax rate on $13M of passive income.
Even millionaires who work for a living say that is ridiculous.
Yawn....

CNN Money stated Warren Buffett made a total of $62,855,038 in 2011.
According to Reuters, the world's third-richest man paid only $6.9 million in fed income tax in 2011 or 10.9%

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Boehner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Another leadership test for Pelosi, who's weath... Jun 24 American_Infidel 17
News Poll: Job approval for Congress at record low (Aug '11) Jun 20 Merchant of Alzhe... 116
News Republicans pick Ryan for speaker; House passes... (Oct '15) Jun '17 Zionista Pork 41
News Boehner: Trump's term 'disaster,' aside from fo... Jun '17 Casket People 7
News Obama greeted by protesters waving Confederate ... (Jul '15) Jun '17 Zionista Pork 6
News White House first discussed Bergdahl prisoner e... (Jun '14) May '17 Lottery Traitors ... 95
News Boehner calls Snowden a traitor (Jun '13) May '17 BlunderCONVICT 34
More from around the web