I cannot help it if you want to derail the direction I was taking the thread and you cannot understand what I was saying.
I don't use anything more than you do but I suspect I pay more taxes a month than you do in several years
Maybe I have misinterpreted the whining you do at the thought that your tax dollars may help those less fortunate then youderail the direction I was taking the thread
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts
Well, I was around then as well.
Wouldn't they? It allows correction, which allows a second bite, which would make more people eligiable, and likely hide some issues.
Still, our problems are not just related to the 70's or the 80's. And every effort has been made to make sure people had access to credit, even if it is rento own, and real ripoff of the poorer folks in our country.
I think you may have a control issue Maybe I have misinterpreted the whining you do at the thought that your tax dollars may help those less fortunate then you
I don't use the court house in my work, I don't use the legal system in my work, do you? My taxes and the taxes of every tax payer are used to create the facilities and the legal system you use in your work and then you cry about government spending.
I didn't ever attend a public school
I have never been arrested
I have never personally sued anyone
I have never needed the public to pay for an emergency room visit
I never needed publicly guaranteed or financed student loan
lawyers in my state pay several hundred dollars in registration fees. any suit we file requires a 450 dollar fee. many court cases are criminal in nature involving the prosecution of criminals for the benefit of all citizens.
I also pay more taxes than the salary of two federal judges. You use far more of the government than i do and pay far less for it
Were you under the impression that filing fees pay for our judicial system? :lol:
Do you never tire of telling people how much money you (allegedly) make? I'd have thought they'd teach better manners at your finishing schools.
Lets examine some of these wealthy dems
Bill Clinton-until he left the presidency he never had a job that would make him a millionaire. If he had been just another lawyer in Arkansas, I doubt he would be worth the many millions he is today
Al Gore's father campaigned as the poor country school teacher. until he left the senate and became a Pawn of Armand Hammer, he never held a job that paid more than 85K a year yet he died a multimillionaire
How did the Kennedy family get its wealth? through Public office
Your post ignores the reality that GOP politicians also emerged from public service with fortunes. But tell me again about how your Great Satan FDR used his evil powers to make himself a fortune in government.
FDR was born rich IIRC. why fixate on him when the History of our Nation is littered with rich dems whose mantra was whining about the plight of the poor as they used Public Office to gain massive wealth.
We agree lets get rid of all of the lobbyist and those that remain in public office will be there to serve the people who elected them
Do you know why I rag on the dems for this-the same reason why lefties rag on people like Newt, or Larry Craig's indiscretion.Bashing Barney Frank for allowing his boyfriend to use his apartment to run a chicken hawking ring is not as damning since Frank has never claimed to be a straight and narrow family man.
Making accusations with out providing a verifiable source speaks for itself, Personally I don't give two sh-ts about Newts indiscretions but chicken hawking is a crime regardless of who's involved or who you know so provide a source
The GOP isn't the party that gains votes by pandering to the envious, the untalented or the unfortunate by pissing and moaning about the wealthy
So you were fortunate enough to be born into a circumstance where you were able to attend private schoolsI didn't ever attend a public school
Poor you what a great educational opportunity you missedI have never been arrested
So what is your point?I have never personally sued anyone
It's obvious that you have never needed to rely on any thing that those less fortunate needed to depend on for thier existanceI have never needed the public to pay for an emergency room visit
It's obvious that you have never needed to rely on any thing that those less fortunate needed to depend on for thier existanceI never needed publicly guaranteed or financed student loan
So it's okay to spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting people, but not okay if some one needs emergency room care or other basic essential need items, explain it to me so I can under stand it betterlawyers in my state pay several hundred dollars in registration fees. any suit we file requires a 450 dollar fee. many court cases are criminal in nature involving the prosecution of criminals for the benefit of all citizens.
I also pay more taxes than the salary of two federal judges. You use far more of the government than i do and pay far less for it
..The GOP isn't the party that gains votes by pandering to the envious, the untalented or the unfortunate by pissing and moaning about the wealthy
Think the role of the Federal government should be to "spread the wealth"...?
Short answer: raise the highest marginal rates (including the definition of the highest brackets) about 50% and this gets fixed.
Yea this is really about why are some of the middle class moving down instead of staying at or moving up from middle class.
Credit over usage is but one of the problems.
Your examples showed it did. Every state outside of one had a lower unemployment rate than those with higher taxes. :shrug:
I'm a little confused, there's no chart in that article, and I don't remeber seeing a link from you? Did I miss one or the other?
Also, the reason I linked several other articles instead of just thatn one is because that alone, for either of us, would not show causation. If I had said, that only reason we know that tax cuts jobs is because of the difference in umemployment by states, you'd have a point if what you say is true. But that is not what I said, or the only evidence I gave. Does this not make sense to you?
Yes, you made an arguement and it wasn't true based upon the examples used. You then wanted me to look at other arguements. I'm not going to research them all once the first one was so mistaken.
Like Obama, you had one shot.
The gap would be much smaller if the government hadn't decided to reinflate the markets. I hate the arguement that the entity that broke something is the answer to fixing it.
I am not following... what do you mean "re-inflate" the markets? What did the government do, when and how does it contribute to the gap?
No, it was not based on those examples. I cannot figure out why you think one example used in one of several articles is what the argument is based on? It isn't. You keep going back to one example in one article, and i keep pointing to the other articles, and asking you read more. I specifically told you I merely link the first few such articles. And then the next few. And so on. The effort was to show the overwhelming amount of material on this topic. Not to make one examplein one article the basis of the argument. That would be silly.
And you still haven't shown me the chart.
I am not following... what do you mean "re-inflate" the markets? What did the government do, when and how does it contribute to the gap?
I haven't heard anyone argue that they want a society where one can't win. In fact, while you may fond someone, that number is about as smaller as those who win. It is bad form to misrepresent the argument. Someone noted earliy that it was not about everyone being equal, but about equity, a very different word. So, you wrote a lot up there that has nothing to with what hardly anyone is arguing and nothing at all addressing what I have said. How should I respond to that?
????Boo you seem to talk about "winners" and "losers" like there is a set number, a limited number. The wonderful thing about this country is there is nothing holding anyone back from being successful. Look at the founder of Wendys, he didn't even graduate from high school. There can only be so many winners, but, nothing is stopping YOU from being one.
Sounds to me like you're jealous of other people's wealth. In fact, you definitely are.
I just purchased a very modest little house, I drive 14 and 15 year old vehicles, I make about 30,000 a year and I consider myself one hell of a winner considering what I've been through and what I know some other people my age are making right now. Labeling oneself a "winner" or "loser" is too this or that, black or white.
You might not consider me a winner, but I'm perfectly happy right now. I'm not rich by any means, but when I go grocery shopping I have no problems buying what I need to eat. I'm not made of money and I purchase things as cheaply as I can, but I am content with what I have, I don't feel I need "more money" to feel like a winner.
Like someone told me one time, "Some of the richest people I know don't have a dime to their name."
Seems you often times do this. You get confused but it would seem you refuse to go back and read what was discussed. You listed states with low tax rates and with high tax rates. The arguement was that those with low tax rates were not creating jobs because Florida (in the low rate) was about the same as Illinois (in the high rate) but when you looked at the rest of the states, every one of the low tax rate states had lower unemployment than the higher tax rate states.
No, I have no desire to look at article after article until one can be found to suit your arguement.
Here are some of the year's big winners:
1. William R. Johnson, Chairman and President, H.J. Heinz. Bonus: $8,589,063, up 17.6 percent.
Top CEO Bonuses of 2010: Heinz, Oracle, Cisco, Nike and Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. - ABC News
2011 Executive PayWatch
China controls their economy. To have more control, we would have to be more like China. Not sure we want that.
We've linked before what business does with tax cuts.
Summation:
Although we would expect tax cuts to bolster the economy, empirical evidence shows that they typically don't. Tax cuts to the rich are more likely to promote investment bubbles than job creation. Tax incentives to corporations frequently promote job destroying choices, or simply become handouts to the executives and the investors.
why tax cuts don't create jobs
Florida has the fifth lowest corporate income tax rate in the country at 5.5 percent, trailing only South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming and Nevada — states hardly in Florida's league. Yet Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average. Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.
It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times
I usually just give the first two or three, but tohers have been posted. What can be done, and what is done are two different things.
They are that,. but not uncommon as to what is done with our appeasment of business.
And while I agree with you that one may be worse than the other, we curently do both. And when you lower their taxes, which largely doesn't amount to enough to actually make a major difference even if used, you have to have some evidence that they actually hire people. That evidence doesn't really exist. The evidence is all over the board, and u=suggests that other factors, not taxes, play a far larger role.
That's right. Without taking control, government can do very little. And I suspect neither one of us wants the government taking control.
I started linking for you on post #159 1Perry. I noted before that I have linked many things on this over time. Later I give you more, and later more, and later some more. I do not limit my argument to the one article.
On this I think we agree.
I will only say we need a strong middle. We don't have one at the moment, or at least not as strong as we should want.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?