- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
All I am saying that it would make sense to do this thing as a package. This will insure that there is some balance. Also we do not know what exactly this committee will recommend. For all I know they will say that there should be another level of taxes for people over $5 million at a 60% rate. Ot they recommend a VAT tax, etc.
So we are two months from the date the president set for these folks to report out. We do not even have a budget for 2010-2011 yet.
I would like to see the comittee's recommendations voted like the base closings staight up or down. The process gets screwed up by changing tax policy before the vote.
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.Now follow along here....If taxes on the top say 10% of income earners are what you say drives the economy in this country, and you want to raise their rates, heck I've seen credible liberals say to 90% or higher, then how is it that 47% of people not paying anything is acceptable to you? Shouldn't everyone pay?
That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.First you have to understand what you are talking about. That highly leveraged paper as you call it, was in response to liberals putting the CRA on steroids then threatening regulators in congress for ringing the warning bell about Fannie, and Freddie. Remember this?
President Bush Oct 12, 2002:Now you can argue that it is all the banks fault, and I would say that an era of abandon did rule in the 90s and early to mid 2000s, but it wasn't without politicians, mostly liberal, egging them on so that they could have their vision of everyone owning a house, forget that they couldn't afford the house they wanted. Now you want to turn and blame the banks for developing a way to hedge their losses that they knew was going to be a result of this unbridled buying? That is really jaw dropping.
Look, you probably don't even realize that it is your money, and my money through savings that makes up the lion share of the capital needed for banks to make loans. That worthless paper as you put it allows banks to lend the money needed to buy things. But you seem to just want big daddy government to take care of everyone. Tell me, where will the government get the money as the rich flee?
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.
That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.
President Bush Oct 12, 2002:
790 KABC: 2002 President Bush Speech Offering Road to Home Ownership
Your kidding right? The rich own a vast portion of the wealth in the country, why would the flee?
The U.S. has close to the lowest tax rates in the world, hardly parasitic.because they can still own all that and not be subjected to parasitic tax policies
why should they stay when there are so many people who think as you having so many votes?
Explain what? Agian, you did not give historical information or factual information, but instead said if they SAY this, it must be so.
Investment analyst Linda Traynham in her opinion writes:
Again, opinion. Where's the evidence to support the opinion?
This only states that the argument has gained traction. Again, no factual evidence to support that it effects the economy.
I know asking for factual evidence means you place people in boxes. So, don't let anything stop you. But, you have not given factual information.
If you look, there's even a thread on one such study.
Tax breaks aren't a good way to create jobs.
That's the central point of a study released this week by the backers of Proposition 24, a state ballot initiative that would roll back three business tax breaks approved by the Legislature in 2008 and 2009.
Study: Tax breaks hurt, don't help - DailyBulletin.com
(1) In a 2002 article in the National Tax Journal by William Gale and Samara Potter concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced the size of the economy. As we have stressed in these posts, the distinction between debt-financed and budget-neutral tax cuts is crucial:
Our results do not show that reductions in tax rates have no effect, or negative effects on economic behavior. Rather, the improved incentives--analyzed in isolation--unambiguously increase economic activity, by raising labor supply, human capital, and private saving. Indeed, these factors raise the size of the economy by almost 1 percent. But [the 2001 tax cut] is a set of incentives-- financed by a reduction in public saving. The key point for understanding the growth effects is that the tax-induced increase in private saving is a only a small faction of the decline in public saving, so that [overall] national saving falls substantially. The decline in national saving reduces the capital stock, even after adjusting for international capital flows, by sufficient amounts to reduce GDP and GNP.
tax.com: Tax Cuts Kill Jobs, Part 2
Similarly, a series of tax cuts in 2003 fell far short of targeted job growth. The Bush administration claimed the tax cuts would create 1.4 million jobs, in addition to some 4.1 million jobs expected to be generated over an 18-month period. But EPI tracked the initiative and found that not only did the additional 1.4 million jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs that had been expected without the tax cuts never materialized either. By the end, the economy only saw an additional 2.4 million jobs added to the economy.
Tax cuts won’t create jobs
From your article:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
News Headlines
No! Remember it was President Bush who was responsible for taking many of those tax payers (millions) off the tax rolls.
That a right wing myth. The CRA involved only community (Hence its name) banks and didn't require them to take risks, only lower interest rates. You can't blame this mess on low income people, that's stubidity.
Your kidding right? The rich own a vast portion of the wealth in the country, why would the flee?
Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity...I'm sure there's no bias there at all. Socialist garbage in, socialist garbage out.
I'm sorry, but nothing there is socialism. Can I recommend a good dictinary for you? or perhaps a history book?
Nothing there is socialism? Are you for real? have you even read their agenda?
Overview | Agenda for Shared Prosperity
Karl Marx could have written this tripe.
EPI is a marxist organization that has its tentacles into our government sadly.
j-mac
J be serious. And for Pete's sakes guys, try to be original. And if you say it is socialist, this means it's socialist? Come on j. Just because some are concerned about everyone doesn't mean they are socailist.
Ofcourse it doesn't, but when you have a group like this partnering with Unions, and other Marxist outlets like Apollo project to write the stimulus bill, and when you have language on their own website that is in line with every bit of wealth redistribution transformation BS coming out of the WH, then yes sir, they are indeed cowardly Marxists.
j-mac
I'm sorry, but nothing there is socialism. Can I recommend a good dictinary for you? or perhaps a history book?
...Just because some are concerned about everyone doesn't mean they are socailist.
Correct. Concern about everyone does not = socialist. Wanting to force everyone to pool all their resources and have a command & control centralized government to distribute said resources is socialist. You are either not being honest with us, or you are not being honest with yourself.
"Shared Prosperity" is all I need to hear. Like "Social Justice", it's code for people who want to buy votes with my prosperity, but thanks for the offer.
J, unions are almost as old as the country, and they don't equal marxism. Many union memebers are as American as it gets. Frankly, all these labels are today is just an attempt to paint a foe they can't reason against or make a sound argunment against. it's not only lame, but unoriginal. This tactic is older than unions.
No one's being any more forced then they ever were.
There is no centralized control of resources.
business is still indeendent and individuals are still as free as they ever were. Nothing new is going on.
Unions resemble little of what they were conceived to do in the beginning.
j-mac
If you are making the case that Unions are at the same point that they were at their inception in American culture, then you are not being honest in this debate. Unions resemble little of what they were conceived to do in the beginning.
Sure they are, and the health care law is a prime example.
Yes there is. And examples are surprisingly out in the open.
Speak to the share holders of GM and Chrysler stock before the bailouts, and then come back and say that....Obama has been attacking contract law from the start.
j-mac
no one's forced to do anything, individuals are as free as they ever were, nothing new is going on
Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Barthold_letter.pdf
LOL!
have you noticed the complete lack of thought which characterizes the expressions of the empty headed obamite remnant lately?
ie, where have all the SERIOUS apologists gone?
what remains is pathetic
Nothing is exactly the same, nor have I claimed they are. But that doesn't make them unAmerican either.
No they aren't. And no, it isn't. You can pay the tax.
You can get your own insurance.
You can be responsible.
Just like driving without insurance, needing medicial care without insurance and the ability to pay, you hurt others, passing your cost on to others.
But, you are not forced any more than you have been.
This concept is not new.
One New York Democrat proclaims that he proudly opposed the federal government’s health care overhaul plan. Another one pledges, in the finest Tea Party spirit, to oppose any future financial bailouts. Still another has rolled out three Republicans in three separate commercials, all vouching for his credentials.
Scott Murphy, an upstate congressman, says in an advertisement that he voted against his party’s wishes because he wants to cut the deficit. More Photos »
But there is one word you will not hear mentioned in any of these campaign advertisements: Democrat.
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05dems.html
Ummmm, . . . those people came to him hat in hand. They didn't have to do or take anything.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court has delayed the imminent sale of
most of Chrysler's assets to a group led by Italian automaker Fiat.
The justices issued a brief order Monday, just before a temporary stay issued by a lower court was to expire.
Three Indiana state funds - representing police officers and teachers - filed an emergency appeal late Saturday asking the high court to intervene. Those lenders seek greater compensation for their share of Chrysler's nearly $7 billion in secured debt.
High court delays sale of Chrysler assets to Fiat group – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
No one's being any more forced then they ever were. There is no centralized control of resources. business is still indeendent and individuals are still as free as they ever were. Nothing new is going on.
if you listen to key words instead of seeking meaning, you will always be easy to fool.
Ummmm, . . . those people came to him hat in hand. They didn't have to do or take anything.
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?