- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Welfare by and large is nothing to the budget. So whining about 'welfare" is like being scared of a fly when you in the cage with a grizzly. Stupid.
However, as a member of the middle class, doing rather well, you may raise taxes on me. however, know that the middle class is the driver of the economy as we spend. Above us, not so much.
Say what?
there are lots of handouts in the budget, most of them are of dubious constitutional merit. the middle class is the driver of big government spending. Until they start paying for what they use, the government's debt will get bigger and bigger because right now the middle class has the credit cards but does not pay the bills
A good deal to business and wealthy. Much less to the poor and middle class. Only cuts to the big three are meaningful. Tell me who is going to touch them?
stop fibbing, the poor pay almost nothing for each dollar of direct government benefits they receive
the richest 2% pay hundreds of dollars for each direct dollar of government benefits
the dem party wins elections by spending the money of the few for the votes of the many
Yes, political support from the middle class was required to give you your temporary tax cuts that were advertised as necessary to create jobs. Since that did not result, there is no longer any reason for the working class to allow them. Especially since the temporary tax cuts have concentrated so much wealth at the top, there is not enough left for consumers to make our economy prosper.
You'll finally figure it out, after another election or two.
Focus on what I actually said. And do you know what the word investment means?
One fallacy at a time TD.
Now then you claimed Obama got wealthy by tax hikes.
What tax hikes?
And how did Obama get wealthy from these supposed tax hikes?
More than likely, not! We cannot afford to allow those that want something now but can't pay for it until next Tuesday comes along. To do anything but talk.
All one needs do is look at those Keynesian Economics play out in Chicago, L.A. and Detroit, Baltimore, New York.....huh? Actually out of 300 Worldwide cities and with the US having the Most 76 and not one of them recovering last year or the year before. Pretty much says it all about the Democrats and their ridiculous spending and waste. Even moreso since Obama declared the Recession over in 2009. The net result.....huh?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retailers moving into old downtown buildings, an abundance of freshly planted greenspaces, and a stream of new jobs in Knoxville, Tennessee, are all signs to Mayor Madeline Rogero that for the last year prosperity has been blooming in her city.
Knoxville is a member of a very small club. Three and a half years since the 2007-09 economic recession ended, only three major U.S. metropolitan areas are experiencing an economic recovery, according to the Brookings Institution. <<<<<
The Washington-based research group has also deemed Dallas and Pittsburgh in recovery after analyzing their employment levels and gross domestic product per capita.
The United States has the most major metropolitan economies of all countries - 76 - according to an annual report on the 300 largest metropolitan economies worldwide that Brookings released on Friday.
"It was still better than last year when the U.S. had no metro recoveries," Brookings Associate Fellow Emilia Istrate said.
"People always want to know what metros are recovering, what they are doing, so they can replicate it. There is no single industry that can help, but there is an industrial structure that can help you grow year to year," she said. "More and more metropolitan areas are looking at the export sector, at foreign investors, at infrastructure."
Any improvements could take a while to impact budgets, said Christy McFarland, who researches fiscal issues for the National League of Cities.....snip~
Only three major U.S. cities see economic recovery: study - Yahoo! News
The 3 major cities in the US use to make up for over 1/4th of this nation's economy. California by themselves the 8th largest economy in the world. Since the Right cannot be blamed as they have not controlled such nor been in power therein. What excuse does the Democrats have for the Repeated failures they have been all along?
30 Republican States starting to prosper.....waasssssssssssssssssssssssup with the Rest?
Wealth is fungible, people make it, and people lose it every day. This is what the today's liberal doesn't understand. In 1980 there were 574,000 millionaires in the US. By 1988 that figure had more than doubled to 1.3 Million. Your imagined picture of the greedy rich man gaining his wealth from a static pie is just plain void of understanding.
Most Americans below the upper echelon have suffered a decline in wealth in recent decades. The median household saw its net worth drop to $57,000 in 2010, down from $73,000 in 1983. It would have been $119,000 had wealth grown equally across households.
The top 1%, on the other hand, saw their average wealth grow to $16.4 million, up from $9.6 million in 1983. This is due in large part to the growing income inequality divide, as well as the sharp rise in value of stocks over the period.
Overall, the widening of the wealth gap in recent decades is due to two things, Shierholz said. The increase in income inequality means the wealthy have more to save and invest every year. Furthermore, the growth of Wall Street means that the rich, who are much more likely to own stocks, accumulated wealth even faster.
"The growth in wealth we did see got funneled to the top and it didn't spur faster growth in the middle," Shierholz said.
I think I've got you, as incredible as it seems to the majority of us, you think we should double down on the policies that got us where we are today. Thank you for your valuable input sir!
"President Obama today declared there would be no deal to avert the looming fiscal cliff unless Republicans agree to raise rates on the top 2 percent of income-earners."
so why was a plan that raised similar amounts of revenues rejected? why should no one else pay higher taxes but the 2%. If the revenue is that needed taxing only 2% of the voters more appears to be based on politics rather than truly a desire to raise more revenue.
I hope he stays firm on this. The wealthy can and should pay more!
I hope he stays firm on this. The wealthy can and should pay more!
Not at all.....otherwise I wouldn't be showing you specifically a problem that has existed in the country for at least a minimum of 60 years. Why you spread all that luv amongst the Republicans. As incredible as it may seem. Considering the facts show who was in power for those that controlled over 2/3rds of the nations Economy. Like I stated. you are welcome to present any and all rationals and excuses the Left has for their endeavors.
As I was talking about the lefts problems and not that of the Right who also went out on a Binge. The Binge although cannot compare to the Lefts track-record.
You can afford it. Shut up and pay!
Because they were NOT similar revenues. No such evidence was ever presented.
The case was made in the presidential election campaign, and the people chose. Please try again next election.
The case was made in the presidential election campaign, and the people chose. Please try again next election.
The case was made in the presidential election campaign, and the people chose. Please try again next election.
Hardly. One has to examine just who this new revenue will stem from and the immediate effect it will have on said individual's financial standing. An effective tax hike on an individual making $35,000 will have a much greater impact than that same hike on someone earning tenfold that amount. As will lets say, closing the Mortgage Interest Deduction versus Charitable deductions. Not all taxes and deductions are created equal, nor are consumers and their respective psyches.Fundamentally, there is absolutely NO difference from $400 Billion coming into the government through deduction removal, or tax increase. They both raise the effective rate a person pays, so this is purely political BS.
So what he won? That doesn't mean you allow the inept to lead the country wherever they want to or just because they are in power. You must of forgot who has the purse strings.....huh?
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?