More Republican Lies

[BrianW]

Heck, I'm lying right now.

[John Smith]

To say that the CoC is Republican is probably not exact. It, however, is a supporter of many concepts supported by Republicans & also supports many Republican candidates. My local CoC is so right leaning that I quit, after being a member for a number of years & even on it's board. When it's hurray for business, screw the environment, I'm done.

This slanted attack ad is, to me, typical of where the CoC has taken itself over the last 10-15 years. It used to be an organization that was pro-business & could be counted on to support things that would help business & that was pretty much it. Nowadays it is a very different critter. Seeing them further the scare everyone with misinformation campaign is no big surprise to me.

We have a serious problem in this country: lies are accepted as free speech. This allows for a misinformed voter. My efforts to address this have fallen on deaf ears. Misrepresentation of matters of fact for gain is the definition of fraud. Political ads, politicians and their designees, as well as "news" media should not be immune to being charged with fraud.

If we can insure that all the ads and media are held accountable for accurate representation of facts, like the growth of government, then spending more money won't be a problem.

[David G]

Heck, I'm lying right now.

Of course you are, in fact, I bet that... HEY!!! Wait a second. I'm gonna need to think about this one.

[David G]

RumPirate,

More picayune quibble, more bushwa, more BAAAHHH!

[wardd]

Heck, I'm lying right now.

you definitely may be

[wardd]

So, David, who do you actually want to have a discussion with? Is this thread open to only the more intelligent of the dupes?

ignorant republican dupes may join in

[David G]

So, David, who do you actually want to have a discussion with? Is this thread open to only the more intelligent of the dupes?

I believe I answered that in post #29, in the section addressed to Pless.

[David G]

More misleading misinformation from Karl Rove. See the "Ad aimed at women...":

http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/20...SITE=WXKSAMELN

[David G]

So, then, your position "evolves" by post 59?

How so?

[David G]

New mouthpiece... same old discredited song. Just keep telling the lie, and eventually everyone will believe it. The Republican disinformation campaign continues:

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...s-plan-would-/

For almost three years, going back to mid-2009, a top talking point for Republicans has been that President Obama "promised" that the stimulus bill -- the two-year spending package he championed to revive the economy -- would keep unemployment below 8 percent.

PolitiFact has examined the claim numerous times, and each time rated it Mostly False.

But the claim still circulates. We heard it most recently from Rep. Bob Latta of Bowling Green, who represents Ohio's 5th District, with a new wrinkle.

[Rum_Pirate]

RumPirate,

More picayune quibble, more bushwa, more BAAAHHH!

Why do people resort and retreat into unintelligible babble when they are wrong or are unable to provide a reasoned response.

Is this action related to their intelligence or lack thereof?

[David G]

Why do people resort and retreat into unintelligible babble when they are wrong or are unable to provide a reasoned response.

Is this action related to their intelligence or lack thereof?

Those who have paid any attention to my history here know that I'm perfectly willing to engage in reasoned debate. Some (see Betty-B's post) wonder why I'm willing to do so when I'm not being met even close to halfway (with few exceptions) with similar responses. But, I remain so. I'm even willing to allow nonsense to be posted, and not sign off. But when the nonsense is pointed out, and the person responsible simply comes back with more nonsense... when they insist on being defensive or obstinate in lieu of any sort of self-examination...

For instance - did you ever look up the phenomenon I mentioned: False Equivalence?

Here's the bottom line. Post something worth a reasoned response, and I'll be happy to provide one.

[Garret]

For the Google Challenged (or just plain lazy):

False equivalence

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to to be able to be used.
The following statements are examples of False Equivalence:

• "Political party A says the sky is red, Political party B says the sky is blue, therefore since they must both be equally wrong, and the truth must be somewhere in the middle, the sky must be purple."
• "They're both soft, cuddly pets, there's no difference between a cat and a dog."
• "We're all born naked, we're all no different from each other."
• "It's just a little white lie." Implied False Equivalence: The phrase is usually used in cases where the lie is large enough to cause concern, and is being claimed as equivalent to small lies that are generally not considered worth mentioning.

[Waddie]

I am glad to clear up this dispute once and for all;

Didn't the president say that you could continue with the health care program you have now if you were happy with it?
Doesn't the health care act then guarantee, or mandate, or insist, that employers must continue on with exactly the same health care program they have now if that's what the members want?
This would indicate to me that it's up to the members , NOT the employer, whether they make a change.

Seems clear enough to me....

regards,
Waddie

[Rum_Pirate]

Those who have paid any attention to my history here know that I'm perfectly willing to engage in reasoned debate. But when the nonsense is pointed out, and the person responsible simply comes back with more nonsense... when they insist on being defensive or obstinate in lieu of any sort of self-examination...

. . . You resort and retreat into unintelligible babble ?

. . . when they insist on being defensive or obstinate in lieu of any sort of self-examination...

I did not realise that being defensive of ones factual position was not permitted.

Those who have paid any attention to my history here know that I'm perfectly willing to engage in reasoned debate. Some (see Betty-B's post) wonder why I'm willing to do so when I'm not being met even close to halfway (with few exceptions) with similar responses. But, I remain so. I'm even willing to allow nonsense to be posted, and not sign off. But when the nonsense is pointed out, and the person responsible simply comes back with more nonsense... when they insist on being defensive or obstinate in lieu of any sort of self-examination...

Please C&P anything that I wrote that is not fact.

Interesting that one tends in invent that they wrote things eg "That's IT? I ask for considered opinion, and all you offer up is a bootless quibble?" when in fact one did no such thing.
Then when others state fact about their position and current knowledge, ie :

I never knew that the US Chamber of Commerce was Republican.
Nor did I realize until David G advised in this thread's OP that Crossroads GPS was Republican. http://www.crossroadsgps.org/about/

I am aware that Mr M. Romney is a Republican.

I had to google :
Jesse Craig James (born January 2, 1961) is a former American sports commentator on the ABC and ESPN television networks who is running for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas.
Prior to becoming a sportscaster, James was a professional football player for the New England Patriots of the National Football League and for theWashington Federals of theUnited States Football League. On December 19, 2011, James announced that he would run for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas as a Republican in 2012.

others accuse them of nonsense.
One would consider that to be rather a strange attitude.

For instance - did you ever look up the phenomenon I mentioned: False Equivalence?
Here's the bottom line. Post something worth a reasoned response, and I'll be happy to provide one.

Saw the post above.
Please C&P anything that I wrote in this thread that is 'False Equivalence'.

[Rum_Pirate]

Hmm,

the little green light has been on about three hours and no reply.

I guess that the vanquished have left the field.

[David G]

SNORT! Your powers of deduction are right up there with your other reasoning abilities.

I've been busy. And you might re-read what I said about what it'll take to respond to you seriously.

[David G]

More inaccuracy from the far right:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...-street-obama/

The American Future Fund’s ad says, "Obama’s flush with cash, returning to Wall Street for even more money. … Wall Street sure supports President Obama."

It is true that Obama has received millions of dollars from Wall Street this cycle. But the intention of the ad is to suggest that Obama is Wall Street’s preferred candidate, just like in 2008. In reality, the numbers don’t bare that out -- Romney is the preferred candidate, based on both campaign contributions and news coverage.

The fund’s ad relies on data from Center for Responsive Politics, but it uses the data in a misleading way. Whether we looked at the broader finance/insurance/real estate industry or the more narrow securities and investment sector, the Romney campaign is far ahead of the Obama campaign in dollars.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

[Rum_Pirate]

SNORT! Your powers of deduction are right up there with your other reasoning abilities.

I've been busy. And you might re-read what I said about what it'll take to respond to you seriously.

Yep, I read it " More picayune quibble, more bushwa, more BAAAHHH!".
Fantastic reasoning abilities.

Waiting, in case you wish to expand upon it a bit more.

One kinda of reminds me of the Bill & Ben the flowerpot men - google it.

Also noted ones 'intellectual' response is "SNORT!", or perhaps one is doing coke or does one have a cold ? - if so I hope it gets better soon.

I do note that one has steadfastly declined to respond on :

1. ones invention that one wrote things eg "That's IT? I ask for considered opinion, and all you offer up is a bootless quibble?" when in fact one did no such thing.

2. Request that one "C&P anything that I wrote that is not fact." - Couldn't find anything could you?

3. Request that one "Please C&P anything that I wrote in this thread that is 'False Equivalence' " - Couldn't find anything could you?

I'll stop here.

[David G]

And... from the poster girl for Republican obfuscation... Michelle Bachmann:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/bachman...ising-whopper/

In several urgent fundraising appeals, Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claims that biased “liberal judges” redrew her congressional district “in retaliation for repeatedly standing up to President Obama.”

The truth is that only two of the five judges were Democratic appointees, and Bachmann’s Minnesota district has become even more Republican than it was before. It’s true that a bipartisan panel of judges redrew district lines and placed the town where Bachmann lives in an abutting district represented by a Democrat. But she has chosen to again run in the 6th District, the one she has represented since 2007. And she doesn’t even have to move to do that.

[Rum_Pirate]

Guess that someone is not going to respond to Post # 72 or 76.

[Cogeniac]

Oh no you don't! You can declare victory and withdraw if you want... but I have to point out what a limited and short-sighted 'victory' you are clinging to. About as worthwhile as a bootfull of sand <G>

ETA - in my lament, above, I mention the shrinking # of reasonable people on the center/right to debate with. I regard you as one of the few remaining... and I very much appreciate your common sense, and moderate approach to things. Your weakness, if I may be so bold, lies only in a lack of formal education. There's nothing wrong with being an autodidact, and if you're so inclined... I highly recommend it in your case. Pless is one of the others I appreciate. His only weakness is a certain pig-headed tendency to get stuck on some minor point at the expense of the larger discussion. Mr. Ross is another. He, however, has two major failings. First - he knows so much more about economics than I that I'm sure he could make my head spin. Second - he hardly ever posts these days. Are there others? Maybe, but I'm forgetting them for the moment.

Hard to know where to jump into this street fight,but FWIW I agree with David. Where has the reasonable discourse gone.? Today it seems that the right wing has co-opted the debate, and it is their way or the highway. This no compromises approach has driven the country to the brink of default, eliminated any chance of progress on important issues,and polarized the populace. If the so called "fiscal conservatives" actually were,, then they would seek a course of action that promised to make things better, not obstruct things so disaster is assured. Lacking consensus, everything involves compromise, but through their intransigence the republicans have virtually assured failure. I suspect this is a cynically calculated tactic to undermine any progress, so they can paint the Obama admin with it and then come back to line the pockets of the 1% at the expense of the rest. And, as part of the 1% I find this offensive. I would rather everyone were in good shape,and I'd gladly pay more in taxes to support my country. Anything less is,frankly, selfish
and unpatriotic.

[Rum_Pirate]

And... from the poster girl for Republican obfuscation... Michelle Bachmann:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/bachman...ising-whopper/

Are we to assume that one is asking for considered opinion, or are we allowed to offer up bootless quibble or cowflop.

[Rum_Pirate]

I'd gladly pay more in taxes to support my country. Anything less is,frankly, selfish and unpatriotic.

No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores.

• James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC (1929) 14 TC 754.

Feel free to donate more of your earnings.

[Horace]

And, as part of the 1% I find this offensive. I would rather everyone were in good shape,and I'd gladly pay more in taxes to support my country. Anything less is,frankly, selfish
and unpatriotic.

Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

[Rum_Pirate]

I know somebody is one here.

I can see his little green light is still on.

In the interim, I shall go to bed and await reading his answers (I am not expecting any) tomorrow.

[John Smith]

Hard to know where to jump into this street fight,but FWIW I agree with David. Where has the reasonable discourse gone.? Today it seems that the right wing has co-opted the debate, and it is their way or the highway. This no compromises approach has driven the country to the brink of default, eliminated any chance of progress on important issues,and polarized the populace. If the so called "fiscal conservatives" actually were,, then they would seek a course of action that promised to make things better, not obstruct things so disaster is assured. Lacking consensus, everything involves compromise, but through their intransigence the republicans have virtually assured failure. I suspect this is a cynically calculated tactic to undermine any progress, so they can paint the Obama admin with it and then come back to line the pockets of the 1% at the expense of the rest. And, as part of the 1% I find this offensive. I would rather everyone were in good shape,and I'd gladly pay more in taxes to support my country. Anything less is,frankly, selfish
and unpatriotic.

Well said. I think a great deal of our current problems stem from our acceptance of lying for politcal gain being free speech. I think it's fraud. A pledge to Grover Norquist overrides the oath to uphold the constitution. Some find it more important for this president to fail than for the nation to succeed.

How can our democracy work without well informed voters? How can we have well informed voters when our elected reps, their deisgnees, our "news" media, talk shows, and political ads have nothing requiring them to get their matters of fact correct.

We have a marvelous ad running on tv in NJ telling us how our governor and our legislature are moving our state in the right directiion. Meanwhile our local paper is telling us his budget numbers are falling way short of what he predicted. Education is taking a hit. Etc. The ad simply presents as fact things that are not factual, and that's okay for some reason.

As long as we, the people, don't demand the truth, we get what we deserve.

[David G]

Rum,

You're feisty. You're full of p&vinegar. I like it.

But... there's one thing missing. I guess I wasn't clear enough with my reminder. What it'll take for me to engage with you is for you to come up with something worth responding to. Silly word games, minor quibbles, cute one-liners, off-topic gotchas, and sophomoric attempts at provocation won't cut it. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm still too weary due to the cancer recover process. But I don't find it worthwhile to joust with the JV.

You see... I've gone thru this process with a string of idiots. They say something unsupportable. I look for the kernel of truth that might be there, and ask quite civilly for clarification or backup for their comments. They are unable to provide it, and get defensive, aggressive, or some other sort of feisty. I raise my hackles, paw the ground, and go to work dismantling their sand castles. Then they stomp off in a huff... or self-ban... or get so over the top that Scot boots them for a bit... or they simply change the subject. There's been a long string of folks that have all more or less fit the same pattern: rotund1; paul oman; thud; et.al.

At this point - I no longer have the patience to do the same dance. However - I remain open and interested in rational discourse. Show that you've got some game. Show that you can bring some good information and coherent thinking to the table. Or don't. At this point, I'm not willing to cosset the Democratic Fallacy. Your opinion is NOT as good as anyone else's regardless of the level of ignorance and lack of reasoning ability you exhibit. If you're not willing to up your game, I simply am not willing to play. The same old pattern has simply become too tedious. Sorry.

[fishrswim]

ignorant republican dupes may join in

Dude! That is soooo redundant.

[Dave Wright]

....You see... I've gone thru this process with a string of idiots.... .

Right on! There's no point in arguing national policy on an internet forum of nameless jackasses. Retreat to local politics, engage in real, live, one on one discussions, and you may find happy commonalities despite political differences. Best wishes.

[David G]

Rum,

Thanks for the nice PM, and the good wishes for healing. You're right... I'm not here so much just for random verbal fisticuffs. My hope is that I/we actually CAN learn something from those who both agree and disagree with own notions.

[Rum_Pirate]

Rum,

Thanks for the nice PM, and the good wishes for healing. You're right... I'm not here so much just for random verbal fisticuffs. My hope is that I/we actually CAN learn something from those who both agree and disagree with own notions.

.

[Keith Wilson]

There's been a long string of folks that have all more or less fit the same pattern: rotund1; paul oman; thud; et.al.

There are now 55 names on my ignore list (I just counted). Almost all of the fit that pattern exactly. Only a very few of them are still here.

I admire your patience.

[John Smith]

Let's see, Clinton raised taxes and we had a marvelous decade. Bush cut taxes and we had a lousy decade.

How many believe that tax cuts create jobs after that history? How many believe that raising taxes will kill jobs after that history?

Apparently a lot.

[Rum_Pirate]

Let's see, Clinton raised taxes and we had a marvelous decade. Bush cut taxes and we had a lousy decade.

How many believe that tax cuts create jobs after that history? How many believe that raising taxes will kill jobs after that history?

Apparently a lot.

OK , so on the premise that raising taxes is good.

At what point does one decide that is the maximum amount of tax tax should be paid?

20% , 30%, 50%, 75% 90% or take it to the ultimate 100%?

Where do you suggest that the maximum be pegged?

[Garret]

I'd really like a bunch of different folks to answer this fairly simple qustion.

Don't know if I'm different enough, but I'd say something along the lines of the 50's/60's - adjusted for inflation (sorry for the formatting, but I bet you can figure it out):

     1950                            1960                        1970                            1980

Taxable Income         Rate         Taxable Income         Rate     Taxable Income         Rate         Taxable Income         Rate

$0 - $4,000         17.40%         $0 - $4,000         20.0%     $0 - $1,000 1        4.00%         $0 - $3,400         0%
$4,000 - $8,000     20.02%         $4,000 - $8,000     22.0%     $1,000 - $2,000     15.00%         $3,400 - $5,500     14%
$8,000 - $12,000     23.66%         $8,000 - $12,000     26.0%     $2,000 - $3,000     16.40%         $5,500 - $7,600     16%
$12,000 - $16,000     27.30%         $12,000 - $16,000     30.0%     $3,000 - $4,000     17.425%     $7,600 - $11,900     18%
$16,000 - $20,000     30.94%         $16,000 - $20,000     34.0%     $4,000 - $8,000     19.475%     $11,900 - $16,000     21%
$20,000 - $24,000     34.58%         $20,000 - $24,000     38.0%     $8,000 - $12,000     22.55%         $16,000 - $20,200     24%
$24,000 - $28,000     39.13%         $24,000 - $28,000     43.0%     $12,000 - $16,000     25.625%     $20,200 - $24,600     28%
$28,000 - $32,000     42.77%         $28,000 - $32,000     47.0%     $16,000 - $20,000     28.70%         $24,600 - $29,900     32%
$32,000 - $36,000     45.50%         $32,000 - $36,000     50.0%     $20,000 - $24,000     32.80%         $29,900 - $35,200     37%
$36,000 - $40,000     48.23%         $36,000 - $40,000     53.0%     $24,000 - $28,000     36.90%         $35,200 - $45,800     43%
$40,000 - $44,000     50.96%         $40,000 - $44,000     56.0%     $28,000 - $32,000     39.975%     $45,800 - $60,000     49%
$44,000 - $52,000     53.69%         $44,000 - $52,000     59.0%     $32,000 - $36,000     43.05%         $60,000 - $85,600     54%
$52,000 - $64,000     56.42%         $52,000 - $64,000     62.0%     $36,000 - $40,000     46.125%     $85,600 - $109,400     59%
$64,000 - $76,000     59.15%         $64,000 - $76,000     65.0%     $40,000 - $44,000     49.20%         $109,400 - $162,400 64%
$76,000 - $88,000     62.79%         $76,000 - $88,000     69.0%     $44,000 - $52,000     51.25%         $162,400 - $215,400 68%
$88,000 - $100,000     65.52%         $88,000 - $100,000     72.0%     $52,000 - $64,000     54.325%     $215,400 - and over 70%
$100,000 - $120,000 68.25%         $100,000 - $120,000 75.0%     $64,000 - $76,000     56.375%
$120,000 - $140,000 70.98%         $120,000 - $140,000 78.0%     $76,000 - $88,000     59.45%
$140,000 - $160,000 73.71%         $140,000 - $160,000 81.0%     $88,000 - $100,000     61.50%
$160,000 - $180,000 76.44%         $160,000 - $180,000 84.0%     $100,000 - $120,000 63.55%
$180,000 - $200,000 79.17%         $180,000 - $200,000 87.0%     $120,000 - $140,000 65.60%
$200,000 - $273,438 80.99%         $200,000 - $300,000 89.0%     $140,000 - $160,000 67.65%
$273,438 - $300,000 82.503%     $300,000 - $400,000 90.0%     $160,000 - $180,000 69.70%
$300,000 - $400,000 83.430%     $400,000 - and over 91.0%     $180,000 - $200,000 70.725%
$400,000 - and over 84.357%                                 $200,000 - and over 71.75%

[David G]

Another bit of slime from the Karl Rove group - Crossroads GPS:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/soft-glove-same-gps-fist/

A new TV ad from Crossroads GPS features an actress playing a downcast mother of two jobless adult children. She says “things changed for the worse” after she supported Barack Obama for president. Her voice is soft, and so is the background music — but her situation is unlikely; her opinions are harsh; and her facts are one-sided and not always accurate.

This 60-second ad is the second in an announced $25 million campaign to soften up the president in key battleground states. It uses a much lighter touch than the first ad — which contained so many factually misleading attacks that it took two articles for us to cover them all.


But it’s an attack ad nonetheless. And it uses factual claims to deceive, not to inform.

[fishrswim]

Don't know if I'm different enough, but I'd say something along the lines of the 50's/60's - adjusted for inflation (sorry for the formatting, but I bet you can figure it out):

     1950                            1960                        1970                            1980

Taxable Income         Rate         Taxable Income         Rate     Taxable Income         Rate         Taxable Income         Rate

$0 - $4,000         17.40%         $0 - $4,000         20.0%     $0 - $1,000 1        4.00%         $0 - $3,400         0%
$4,000 - $8,000     20.02%         $4,000 - $8,000     22.0%     $1,000 - $2,000     15.00%         $3,400 - $5,500     14%
$8,000 - $12,000     23.66%         $8,000 - $12,000     26.0%     $2,000 - $3,000     16.40%         $5,500 - $7,600     16%
$12,000 - $16,000     27.30%         $12,000 - $16,000     30.0%     $3,000 - $4,000     17.425%     $7,600 - $11,900     18%
$16,000 - $20,000     30.94%         $16,000 - $20,000     34.0%     $4,000 - $8,000     19.475%     $11,900 - $16,000     21%
$20,000 - $24,000     34.58%         $20,000 - $24,000     38.0%     $8,000 - $12,000     22.55%         $16,000 - $20,200     24%
$24,000 - $28,000     39.13%         $24,000 - $28,000     43.0%     $12,000 - $16,000     25.625%     $20,200 - $24,600     28%
$28,000 - $32,000     42.77%         $28,000 - $32,000     47.0%     $16,000 - $20,000     28.70%         $24,600 - $29,900     32%
$32,000 - $36,000     45.50%         $32,000 - $36,000     50.0%     $20,000 - $24,000     32.80%         $29,900 - $35,200     37%
$36,000 - $40,000     48.23%         $36,000 - $40,000     53.0%     $24,000 - $28,000     36.90%         $35,200 - $45,800     43%
$40,000 - $44,000     50.96%         $40,000 - $44,000     56.0%     $28,000 - $32,000     39.975%     $45,800 - $60,000     49%
$44,000 - $52,000     53.69%         $44,000 - $52,000     59.0%     $32,000 - $36,000     43.05%         $60,000 - $85,600     54%
$52,000 - $64,000     56.42%         $52,000 - $64,000     62.0%     $36,000 - $40,000     46.125%     $85,600 - $109,400     59%
$64,000 - $76,000     59.15%         $64,000 - $76,000     65.0%     $40,000 - $44,000     49.20%         $109,400 - $162,400 64%
$76,000 - $88,000     62.79%         $76,000 - $88,000     69.0%     $44,000 - $52,000     51.25%         $162,400 - $215,400 68%
$88,000 - $100,000     65.52%         $88,000 - $100,000     72.0%     $52,000 - $64,000     54.325%     $215,400 - and over 70%
$100,000 - $120,000 68.25%         $100,000 - $120,000 75.0%     $64,000 - $76,000     56.375%
$120,000 - $140,000 70.98%         $120,000 - $140,000 78.0%     $76,000 - $88,000     59.45%
$140,000 - $160,000 73.71%         $140,000 - $160,000 81.0%     $88,000 - $100,000     61.50%
$160,000 - $180,000 76.44%         $160,000 - $180,000 84.0%     $100,000 - $120,000 63.55%
$180,000 - $200,000 79.17%         $180,000 - $200,000 87.0%     $120,000 - $140,000 65.60%
$200,000 - $273,438 80.99%         $200,000 - $300,000 89.0%     $140,000 - $160,000 67.65%
$273,438 - $300,000 82.503%     $300,000 - $400,000 90.0%     $160,000 - $180,000 69.70%
$300,000 - $400,000 83.430%     $400,000 - and over 91.0%     $180,000 - $200,000 70.725%
$400,000 - and over 84.357%                                 $200,000 - and over 71.75%

I think the 1980 rates, adjusted for inflation, are about right.

[Garret]

I think the 1980 rates, adjusted for inflation, are about right.

OK by me!

[S.V. Airlie]

This is not true or honest. Many examples of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and Fox news deliberatly misrepresenting matters of fact have been posed here of the last couple of years.

I've not seen, as I can reall, a single instance posted of Maddow getting her facts wrong.

Maybe you should listen to Maddow instead of listening to FOX and the other conservative media looking for errors.Maddow is good at giving a truthful tidbit and than she injects her opinion on the one or two facts she uses daily. I listen to her once in a while but turn her off almost immediately.

[wardd]

Maybe you should listen to Maddow instead of listening to FOX and the other conservative media looking for errors.Maddow is good at giving a truthful tidbit and than she injects her opinion on the one or two facts she uses daily. I listen to her once in a while but turn her off almost immediately.

she's not allowed an opinion?

it's an opinion show

[S.V. Airlie]

She can gave an opinion anytime she wants. As I stated, her opinion is based on something that amounts to 10% fact on a topic, her opinion is just that but you libs lap it up as do the very conservative and Limbaugh.

[wardd]

She can gave an opinion anytime she wants. As I stated, her opinion is based on something that amounts to 10% fact on a topic, her opinion is just that but you libs lap it up as do the very conservative and Limbaugh.

how would you know?

[S.V. Airlie]

Unlike the libs who spend time watching the right leaning media for mistakes, and gaffes, etc. I heard enough out of her to form MY opinion.I do have a right to an opinion even on this forum..

[John Smith]

OK , so on the premise that raising taxes is good.

At what point does one decide that is the maximum amount of tax tax should be paid?

20% , 30%, 50%, 75% 90% or take it to the ultimate 100%?

Where do you suggest that the maximum be pegged?

In order that I may be consistant, look to whatever decade you believe our nation was at its best, and let's go back to those tax rates.

Clinton put in place tax rates that worked, but the deficit he inherited is dwarfed by the one Obama inherited, so I think something a little higher would be good. Up to me, I'd go back to the tax rates when we put the man on the moon. The government had the money to do the heavy lifting in the R&D for the space program and today we have many things in our daily lives that stem from that. Billion dollar industries exist today because of the government's role then.

If we want to take pride in our country, if we want to lead the world in good areas, rather than the number of people we have in prison, we need to properly fund our government. We all benefit from a state of the art infrastructure. We can't repair the infrastructure we have today with today's tax rates. Do you think we could have built it with today's tax rates?

When we built the interstate highway system, when we paid off our WWII debt, and funded the GI bill, the top tax rate was 90%. That's how we paid for all that stuff.

If you can settle for a third world country, that government comes a little cheaper.

[John Smith]

Another bit of slime from the Karl Rove group - Crossroads GPS:

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/soft-glove-same-gps-fist/

Why does everyone consider this stuff free speech?

[John Smith]

OK by me!

As long as you're taling about that year, and not the decade, I'm good with it.

What I don't get is the people who are wealthy today got wealthy during those decades when we had higher tax rates. What were the tax rates during Bill Gates' rise to his wealth? The Koch Brothers?

[John Smith]

Maybe you should listen to Maddow instead of listening to FOX and the other conservative media looking for errors.Maddow is good at giving a truthful tidbit and than she injects her opinion on the one or two facts she uses daily. I listen to her once in a while but turn her off almost immediately.

but those facts are facts. The folks on FOX offer their opinions based upon stuff they make up and present as fact. That's an important difference.

[John Smith]

Unlike the libs who spend time watching the right leaning media for mistakes, and gaffes, etc. I heard enough out of her to form MY opinion.I do have a right to an opinion even on this forum..

Absolutely. Everyone has a right to form an opinion. No one should have the right to make up facts to fit their opinion.

A good example is Limbaugh's description of Fluke's testimony; totally false.

[S.V. Airlie]

Ya see I already disagree.This is not what a commentator like Rush or Maddow are supposed to be; really honest in or with their opinions.No bloody difference between them.