why do republicans want to raise taxes on working folks?

Question

Republicans propose tax increases for working folks. Meanwhile they borrow money to fund tax cuts for the rich.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_social_security;_ylt=AsraOZObbmBwRh52q6xWzr6s0NUE

Answer 1

Well, you answered your own question! The money they borrow to fund rich tax cuts has to be paid back! It is us, the little people, who have to pay for those rich people & their tax cuts! Now you now why we want Bush out!

Answer 2

You have it backwards. The liberals claim that they want to tax the rich and give tax breaks to the poor. What they're not telling you is their definition of "rich" is any household that makes over $40,000.00 a year. That means over half the working people in the U.S. can expect a tax increase, and they're not telling you just how that tax against the "evil" rich (less than 1% of the people facing the tax increase) is going to be spent. The other part of the problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges. The tax cuts were meant to give people more money in their pockets to increase consumer spending and stimulate the economy. Social security is the government telling YOU how much money they're going to withhold and how much you get later. It's yet another find example of socialism bringing democratic government to its knees when people become way too reliant on government to take care of them. This is precisely why we keep saying social security needs to go and people need to take responsibility for providing for themselves in their retirement years. The more government programs that are developed that are supposed to take care of the American people, the more you can expect our taxes to increase and our civil liberties to decrease. If you're worried about that, take a close look at that tax increases and the universal health care plans proposed by the liberals and you'll learn very quickly how they're trying to march us down the same road Russia was marching on after the 1917 revolution.

Answer 3

Jumping to conclusions are we? I see 2 things that are probably likely here. #1, you are young, and #2, have little knowledge of the history of Social Security. The Social Security issue has been raging for a lot longer than you may very well have been alive. One of the worst offenders for the state of affairs for Social Security has been the Democrats. A new bill would come up, and funding would need to be found for it. Lo and behold, Social Security has a surplus of money available, so use that, and they did. The government, most notably the Democrats since they have had the power to do just about as they pleased in the Senate up until the 1990's, has been dipping into the Social Security funds to pay for things that that money should never have been used for. The President made a proposal for a possible fix for something that was running well until it got used for what it was never meant to be used for, frequently. The idea of allowing people to take part of their tax allowcation and invest it as they saw fit caused a huge debate against it, principally because it would take money out of the hands of the government. That, to those who opposed the idea, could be likened to taking food out of the mouths of starving babies. Those against such a plan wanted the system to stay as it is because they wanted to maintain the control that the government has over the Social Security system. Those who wailed the most over that plan of allowing people to invest as they saw fit were the Democrats. Losing that kind of money to have the power to mis-direct as they may choose to do was appalling to them. They were the starving babies that the food (money) would be taken away from.
The "rich" that you speak of are not the rich that are known to be rich. The rich, as you mention have no need of "tax" breaks since they spend little on taxes anyway. They know how to control their money so that while they may make millions, they can legitimately report lower levels of income, legally. That might cause you to choke, but it is true. If they have made an investment that carries a tax reducing element, then they can, and do reduce their income by that means, which is but 1 of many ways. A home owner is able to reduce their gross income by the simple means of the interest paid on their house.
A point that the unaware typically miss is that the rich that you cry about, and especially the Democrats cry about as getting tax breaks is nothing more than the middle class of America. How can we be considered "rich". That depends on what you call income, or not income. You need to know how the politicians acount for what should be taxed, and it goes far beyond just what is earned at your job. It also includes your insurance accounts, investments, and what you have that is of worth, and is paid for. You, really need to be better informed than what you are, and on that issue, who is considered "rich", you are woefully lacking, and a prime lacky for those who would like to get more out of the working populace.

Answer 4

Somebody has to pay to run this country, and as long as Bush, Cheney, and other "tax-cut and spend," deficit be damned Republicans have their way, it's not going to be the wealthy, but the middle class and the poor who bear the burden of financing this nation and funding Bush's war.

Answer 5

Why did you answer your own question?They want to raise taxes on working folks so they can give tax cuts to the wealthiest folks!

Which is almost as outrageous as when Ken Lays wife went on natioonal TV saying how broke they were.While she was wearing a designer dress/with diamonds sitting in a mansion!

Answer 6

The Republicans are right. The tax now is on the first 95 k earned at about 7 percent. We should just tax all earned income at 7 percent to pay for social security. If you earn 10 million, you pay 70k in social security. Finally, a great idea from the Republicans.

Answer 7

Well, we wanted to privatize social security, but you guys were against it. Oh no, better to flush every cent of the hundreds of thousands paid into social security rather than turn it into a real retirement or to let someone make a buck managing it. So now the ONLY option left open to him by the Democrats is to reduce benefits and to raise employee taxes to fund social security.

So essentially, he's only doing what those bright bulbs in the democratic congress want to do. You guys have gotten your way. Congratulations. Higher taxes and reduced benefits. You must be so proud.

LOL, 'Progressives', gotta love 'em.

Answer 8

Nothing different at all.

The right wing has always supported the well being of the rich and the corporations over the well being of the people as a whole.
Of course,these days the Democrats are only too eager to join in.

Answer 9

Hmmm, I wonder if they remember which party got us into this mess by borrowing billions from Social Security to fund the military.

Answer 10

You are obviously missing the point. the treasury department said they only way to fix it is through a combination of benefit cuts, and/or tax increases. This does not mean that all republicans want to raise taxes. Dems complain that SS needs to be fixed, but any solution given they are against. I prefer the let me invest it on my own plan.