GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This 3% is content to ship American jobs and money overseas to increase their wealth even further.
General Electric is so good at doing their taxes, the government pays them. In 2010, the company reported global profits of $14.2 billion, $5.1 billion of which came from the U.S. But using a combination of offshore accounts and aggressive lobbying for tax breaks, GE managed to not only pay no taxes, but get a benefit of $3.2 billion. GE spent $200 million on lobbying in the last decade. At one point, when a generous tax break was about to expire, the head of GE's tax team met with Representative Charles Rangel, then chairman of the ways and means committee, and begged for an extension on one knee. Supposedly it was a joke, but GE got its extension, and Rangel got a $30 million gift for New York City schools.
Let me go on the record as an advocate for tax hikes, draconian spending cuts, draconian cuts in government regulations (state and fed) and a horrible American recession that will last for nearly 10 years.
Medicine tastes bad but we (America) refuse to take our medicine because we have allowed the political propaganda machines of both parties to fill our heads with the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too. We think that we can build utopia because we are special, we are Americans and we are a super power that will never die.
The deficit as a % of GDP during the 80s was never close to what it has been the last three years. As a matter of fact if you go back the last thrity years the deficit has not been as high in any year as it has been in each of the last three years.
Say what? How does existing law define any compliance with the definition of fair? Everyone's definition of fair varies. Is it fair that the rich pay more because they earn more? It is fair that the rich pay more because they own vast majority of assets in this country? It is fair that everyone pays the same amount? The problem with people like Turtle is that they define fair as they please and do not stick to that definition. I have no respect for people who unilaterally change their definitions based on how badly they are losing an argument.
That shouldn't be a problem as the COTUS doesn't cover that. Furthermore, taxation in excess of spending isn't necessarily a bad idea.
For instance, states do this all of the time. They deposit the surplus into rainy day funds which generate income which can be used for disaster, stimulus or budget balancing.
IMO, building a surplus is far preferable then deficit spending. I'd rather have the fed tax more, build a surplus fund and use that surplus fund for stimulus spending during recessions then borrow money.
At least with that method we stay in the black. As Japan shows us, bad stuff happens. Going in to debt to fix that is not preferable when you can build up a safety fund during good times. What I vastly dislike about the Tea Party is that they don't seem to understand this .
The rich also own the greatest portion of asset.
That does not logically follow.
Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries, I hope is sufficient to persuade every one to a present correction of himself, and think not that either my pains, nor the [investors'] purses, will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth. I speak not this to you all, for diverse of you I know deserve both honor and reward, better than is yet here to be had: but the greater part must be more industrious, or starve, how ever you have been heretofore tolerated by the authorities of the Council, from that I have often commanded you. You see now that power rests wholly in myself: you must obey this now for a Law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain an hundred and fifty idle loiterers.
Actually it's both.
Come again? 50% don't pay federal taxes? You got this where? Last I checked, payroll taxes are federal taxes. And only around 45% of the country is not working. Actually 10% of the population is carrying 55% of the burden.
As for no "rational" definition, well that is your opinion.
Take this for example: The economy is basically a machine to generate material wealth.
The economy is kept going by taxes that support the economy and regulate it so that it functions properly. Now, who should pay the majority of taxes in such a system? Those who own very few of the total wealth or those who own the majority of the wealth?
So much for your "no rational definition of fair is going to allow this."
Which is nothing more than speculation.
Taxation =/= theft.It certainly does when the destination of the collected revenues is illegal programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...the list is three lines up, dude...
That depends how you look at things. See my earlier example.
The Mayor looks at things and sees the crashing end, and he doesn't want that for his children and grand children.
If you keep up the notion that taxation = theft, you are not worth talking you.
If you keep posting strawmen like that, you're going to have to buy a new farm.
Let me go on the record as an advocate for tax hikes, draconian spending cuts, draconian cuts in government regulations (state and fed) and a horrible American recession that will last for nearly 10 years.
Medicine tastes bad but we (America) refuse to take our medicine because we have allowed the political propaganda machines of both parties to fill our heads with the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too. We think that we can build utopia because we are special, we are Americans and we are a super power that will never die.
I’m not sure how well this will go for the Republicans. Getting people to vote against their economic interests only works when economic issues are eclipsed by social fluff issues like gay marriage and abortion.
I agree with your post. There are really two ways to fund the government - Debt and taxes
and the spot that we are in right now is going to require reducing spending to lower the debt burden, and taxation to help pay it off. It is going to require both, since just one won't cut it.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that today the unconstitutional programs both parties passed a lifetime ago are leading the nation into economic disaster, and that only one party is even making an attempt, as lame as it is, to rectify the error made so long ago?
Why aren't you focusing on the essential realities, namely:
1) The programs were unconstitutional when passed.
2) The programs are still unconstituitonal.
3) The programs are killing America.
4) The death of America is going to hit those poor you pretend to care about the worst of anyone?
5) The Democrats are doing everything they can to increase the damage done, they're not simply attempting to maintain the status quo, they're actively seeking to expand the damage.
Those are the salient issues.
You're addressing not one of them.
jewel of the new deal---very good
but if the jewels are so valuable why are they in such dire need of fixing
Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC
We have a United States Supreme Court to decide these matters and they did decide these matters.
Your side lost.
The people who believe such programs were unconstitutional lost and they were ruled as constitutional.
and few people who understand the issue will say that was anything other than a FDR intimidated court worried about politics It required complete reversal of 130 years of precedent facilitated by FDR's court packing threat and FDR's big win in 1936
Spin, spin and more spin. So what? Such intellectual rationalization means nothing compared to the reality of the power of the Court and the decisions they render.
so tell us-what sound precedent caused the Supremes to overrule Schechter Poultry and the hundred+ years of precedent it was based on?
Its irrelevant. Accept it and move on. Or not. It means precious little to me.
You tried this before to no avail. I NEVER brought up the case. You did. If it means so much to you - you start a thread on it and discuss it. It means NOTHING to me and I never brought it up. The fact is a simple one: you are not on the US Supreme Court. Those that are, those who have the legal power, disagreed with you. Accept it or not. It means little to reality.
Its irrelevant. Accept it and move on. Or not. It means precious little to me.
You tried this before to no avail. I NEVER brought up the case. You did. If it means so much to you - you start a thread on it and discuss it. It means NOTHING to me and I never brought it up. The fact is a simple one: you are not on the US Supreme Court. Those that are, those who have the legal power, disagreed with you. Accept it or not. It means little to reality.
winners win losers lose but that 3% is not static so that sort of blows a big hole in your class envy
There's no class envy at all. I'm perfectly happy and comfortable in my life. i don't need to have excess. I do however care about the people in this country that are struggling and don't mind paying my taxes to support my country.
See....I don't buy into your philosophy that he with the most wins....or that more is always better. If fewer and fewer people in this country adhered to that philosphy, we could return this country to being a great country again.
Spending like drunken sailors is spending money and blood for wars that need not be fought.
i see you are having the same problem as conservative, that is proving your claim.if you want the country to be great you have to deal with the fact that the current tax system which allows the many to vote up the tax burden of a minority has caused a huge expansion in both government and government debt.
you apparently are upset at the rich wanting more is bad yet you support a system where your dem masters win elections by spending money on the many while allowing the many not to pay the bills
If you run up a big debt and elect to reduce your income, what do you expect to happen?
if you want the country to be great you have to deal with the fact that the current tax system which allows the many to vote up the tax burden of a minority has caused a huge expansion in both government and government debt.
you apparently are upset at the rich wanting more is bad yet you support a system where your dem masters win elections by spending money on the many while allowing the many not to pay the bills
for the most part Obama has followed the same policies as Bush when it comes to the economy.
McCain would have done not much different
a couple hundred billion here or there
Now as Keynesian theory suggests that durin good economic periods running a governmengt surplus is in order to fund government deficits during the bad years
However, I did not see the outrage when Democrats included deep cuts to Medicare, in the Obamacare bill.
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?