If this economist fell in the forest and nobody was there to see or hear it did it actually happen?
Dude...I like your style. It's dumb, but I like it. You can't come up with a comment about how Obama lied, so you try to minimize the importance of the economist. Well...evidently Obama thought he was important enough to lie about his work to his own advantage.
Oh, well. Like I said...another Obama talking point bites the dust.
My boss would be paying me a helluva lot of per diem, so my reportable income would be below the 200 grand mark.
Or, pay me about 50 grand a year in Wal-Mart gift cards.
So you want to take 80% of the earnings of anyone earning $200k and over?
I didn't see this before my last post. There's nothing reasonable about it, because you know why? It's not the government's money. If the govt is not going to let me keep any more than 40 grand a year anyway, what's the incentive to ever go to college or get into a higher earning profession? You're views are truly scary.
It'll work...if it actually yields more tax revenue.
Taxing an income group at 80% will probably result in one of two things: 1) they will do a better job of hiding their money and/or 2) It will demotivate people to make that much money.
A better plan would be to get the hell out of the way of the private sector, let them make more money that will be taxed at the current rate. That's a 100% fool-proof way to create more tax revenue.
No, it wouldn't work.
Some of you folks seem to be missing the fact that the wealthy tend to derive their income from sources which are substantially more flexible than those of wage earners. If a "rich guy" gets a W-2 it's usually for a relatively small portion of his income. The rest of the stuff can be moved around they are far more able to decide for themselves how much income they choose to show.
yes 50% at $200k and 95% for mega rich.
Average. 80%.
union people make more than college ones.
SO organizing is better than education.........
They can move it al lthey want.
USA taxes are based on CITIZENSHIP. Not location of the persons body........
Look up 877A taxes too LOL
yes 50% at $200k and 95% for mega rich.
Average. 80%.
Trouble is they dont work. They only collect income from ownership of corps.
So the only way for them to pay less taxes, is to own less. And keep idle cash.
It would be difficult to attempt to minimize the importance of the economist beyond what it already is.
Do you think the lean of the publication takes away from the statement from the professor...whom Obama is inaccurately quoting? I mean...dude...a Princeton economist is telling you that Obama is misrepresenting his own study. It doesn't matter if it was reported by the Weekly Standard or ABC.
What email are you talking about? The one the Professor sent to Weekly Standard? It's quoted in the article. Or, do you believe Weekly Standard put that guy's name to what they say is his email? And it's not his?
Come on, dude...you can do better than this, eh?
Obama Lied and you got laid off.
The professor, Harvey Rosen , was on Bush's economic team. I think HIS comments are politically directed to discredit the President during the campaign time only.
Obama didn't spin it. The corporate media spun it and the President responded. And I don't find it ironic that the corporate media spun it.Fine. Then why would Obama reference his study...and then spin what he said to make it sound different? Don't you find that rather idiotic?
Dude...you keep trying to minimize the importance of this issue, but any way you slice it, Obama ****ed up and now he's lost a talking point.
Sucks to be him, eh?
Obama didn't spin it. The corporate media spun it and the President responded. And I don't find it ironic that the corporate media spun it.
Didn't spin it?
He quoted the study as supporting his point when it doesn't at all. That's pretty much the very definition of spin.
Romney and Obama would be/are just as useless as the other at being POTUS...just in somewhat different ways.
Actually, we have yet to determine the email,don't we? Remember Breitbart and Sherrod lies he told? Remember how Bush claimed McCain had a black child, or Vietnamese children?
Emails, schmemails..the whole thing is a political scheme to make the President look bad.
Why don't you guys ever focus on real news?
I'm just not sure what McCain's adopted child has to do with Pres. Obama's use of a study that finds exactly the opposite of what he says it does.
I get the impression you'll say anything to defend Pres. Obama no matter how wrong he is.
Interesting. Based upon?
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?