White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

If one is incompetent why wouldn't you blame him? The economic results today are a reflection of that incompetence yet you are willing to give him a pass, why?

He is not incompetent he merely wants to tax you more so you don't like him. He is not the sole responsible party for today's economy. He may have a VERY small role in it, but it is Bush whom is responsible.

If we have to blame someone or something it should be Bush/the current HoR/Senate. They have not budged on any of their policies and aren't getting anything done. Some of them even say I'm not signing ANYTHING Obama writes. Even if that anything is exactly what they want.

*(Yay, the thread isn't dead)*

mbig · Oct 10, 2011

conservative said:
Noticed the only one weaseling out is you, are you worse off today than you were in 1981-82? That is what people today are seeing and feeling thus the very low JAR of Obama.

Goldenboy said:
GoldenBoy said:

It is a negligent question as i was born after 1981-82. People are worse off today; we can just look at record foreclosures and continued downward trend in housing prices (peoples largest investment).

Click to expand...

Many homeowners already are at the financial edge:
43% of American households spend more than they earn each year.
– Homeownership Preservation Foundation data of 60,000 homeowners

52% of employees live paycheck to paycheck.
– The MetLife Study of Employee Benefit Trends: Findings from the 2003 National Survey of Employers and Employees, November 2003.

Nearly 42% of all American households do not have enough in liquid financial assets to support themselves for at least three months.
46% of American households have less than $5,000 in liquid assets, including IRAs.
- Asena Caner and Edward N. Wolff, “Asset Poverty in the United States: Its Persistence in an Expansionary Economy,” Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, 2004.

I lived through Both recessions as a Financial professional.

This is far Worse than 1981/1982.
It's not even Close.
This was a mitigated 1929. It was all over in hours without Fed/Treasury action. ALL The banks/brokers/Car cos. everyone were Bye-Bye.

Bernanke understands this of course, a scholar of 1929, and is trying to prevent the 'dead decade' of the 1930's that followed.
[Unlike 1981] People are Still de-leveraging, Housing still fading 4 years later.
We were way over-extended privately and publicly.
Obama & Co can't do much more that they're doing now.
Any more stimulous, as you can see, would be politically unviable, especially if it increased the deficit.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
He is not incompetent he merely wants to tax you more so you don't like him. He is not the sole responsible party for today's economy. He may have a VERY small role in it, but it is Bush whom is responsible.

If we have to blame someone or something it should be Bush/the current HoR/Senate. They have not budged on any of their policies and aren't getting anything done. Some of them even say I'm not signing ANYTHING Obama writes. Even if that anything is exactly what they want.

*(Yay, the thread isn't dead)*

That is your opinion, when does this become the Obama economy in your world and what does your textbooks tell you regarding the role of Congress in creating economic policy? It has everything to do with the direction of the country and the lack of leadership on the part of this President. Some here have claimed that a leader can delegate responsibility when the reality is NO leader can delegate responsibility but instead can delegate authority. The responsibility for what is going on in his Administration is Obama's.

Seems that you want to ignore what happened from 2009-2010 and lay the blame totally on the House that wasn't changed until 2011. Obama had total control of the Congress with more overwhelming numbers than Bush ever had yet for some reason you want to blame Bush who didn't have the control that Obama had and ignore the policies Obama has implemented that showed lack of leadership and promoted lace of confidence.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

mbig said:
I lived through Both recessions as a Financial professional.

This is far Worse than 1981/1982.
It's not even Close.
This was a mitigated 1929. It was all over in hours without Fed/Treasury action. ALL The banks/brokers/Car cos. everyone were Bye-Bye.

Bernanke understands this of course, a scholar of 1929, and is trying to prevent the 'dead decade' of the 1930's that followed.
[Unlike 1981] People are Still de-leveraging, Housing still fading 4 years later.
We were way over-extended privately and publicly.
Obama & Co can't do much more that they're doing now.
Any more stimulous, as you can see, would be politically unviable, especially if it increased the deficit.

Then tell me why personally this is worse for you than paying high interest rates, having high inflation, and higher unemployment? If you were around during the 81-82 then you would understand the cost of living then vs. now as well as the economy then vs. now. Let me help you

GDP
1981-82 3.1 trillion and 3.2 trillion
2009-2010 13.9 and 14.5 trillion

Employment
1981-1982 99.9 Million and 99.7
2009-2010 142.2 million and 138.5 million

What you and others want to ignore is the personal impact on the working people today and focus solely on the unemployed who are going to be hurt regardless of the recession.

Notice the difference in economic numbers and employment numbers. Then factor in the cost of living during both periods and my belief is you were very young during the 81-82 recession or have a very short memory.

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Obama had total control of the Congress with more overwhelming numbers than Bush ever had yet for some reason you want to blame Bush who didn't have the control that Obama had and ignore the policies Obama has implemented that showed lack of leadership and promoted lace of confidence.

Who says what he didn't do during those years didn't stop us from going deeper into a recession? I guess we will never know...:shrug:

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
Who says what he didn't do during those years didn't stop us from going deeper into a recession? I guess we will never know...:shrug:

Because there is no way of knowing that. You want to buy the rhetoric when that rhetoric is nothing but campaign speech. We came out of recession in June 2009 so what was it about his economic policy that got us out of that recession yet today has worse economic results than 2010? It is ok to trust but verify. You are trusting yet never asking the tough questions.

apdst · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
He is not incompetent he merely wants to tax you more so you don't like him. He is not the sole responsible party for today's economy. He may have a VERY small role in it, but it is Bush whom is responsible.

If we have to blame someone or something it should be Bush/the current HoR/Senate. They have not budged on any of their policies and aren't getting anything done. Some of them even say I'm not signing ANYTHING Obama writes. Even if that anything is exactly what they want.

*(Yay, the thread isn't dead)*

How is Bush totally responsible? Link us to the exact Bush policies that caused the recession.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

mbig said:
I lived through Both recessions as a Financial professional.

This is far Worse than 1981/1982.
It's not even Close.
This was a mitigated 1929. It was all over in hours without Fed/Treasury action. ALL The banks/brokers/Car cos. everyone were Bye-Bye.

Bernanke understands this of course, a scholar of 1929, and is trying to prevent the 'dead decade' of the 1930's that followed.
[Unlike 1981] People are Still de-leveraging, Housing still fading 4 years later.
We were way over-extended privately and publicly.
Obama & Co can't do much more that they're doing now.
Any more stimulous, as you can see, would be politically unviable, especially if it increased the deficit.

Meet the 53%

Meet America‘s ’53%’ – And They Have a Message for the ‘99%’ Protesters

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Meet the 53%

Meet America‘s ’53%’ – And They Have a Message for the ‘99%’ Protesters

Did you just link me to the politically biased site freerepublic?

Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers",[2] using screen names. For each article, the forum's main page typically shows its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline.

Free Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take your rhetoric elsewhere.

The Blaze is a conservative news and opinion website launched on August 31, 2010, by American media personality and Fox News host Glenn Beck's Mercury Radio Arts, three days after Beck's widely publicized Restoring Honor rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C. Beck has promoted The Blaze as an alternative to "mainstream media outlets," which Beck says are "distorting facts to fit rigid agendas." Beck was quoted saying that The Blaze will feature "breaking news, original reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most" and that "we will examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won’t be afraid of a history lesson."[3] The site is reportedly modeled after The Huffington Post, and has been compared to that site by Matt DeLong of the Washington Post and Steve Krakauer of Mediaite.[4][5]

The Blaze (web site) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For that articles source "TheBlaze". :lamo

liblady · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Meet the 53%

Meet America‘s ’53%’ – And They Have a Message for the ‘99%’ Protesters

you hang out at freeper often, do you?

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
Did you just link me to the politically biased site freerepublic?

Free Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take your rhetoric elsewhere.

The Blaze (web site) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For that articles source "TheBlaze". :lamo

Yeah, I did, but could have linked you with many other sites showing the signs that Free Republic shows. You see, seems to me that the source of the articles is more important than the content of the article. Refute the signs and the fact that 53% of the income earners in this country are paying all the FIT for the country? That seems to be something liberals like you are having trouble understanding including who those 53% are.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

liblady said:
you hang out at freeper often, do you?

Like everyone else here, you ignore the content and attack the messenger. What is it in the content that bothers you the most? Could it be that you cannot refute the fact that 53% of income earners are paying all the net Income taxes in this country thus funding the govt?

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Yeah, I did, but could have linked you with many other sites showing the signs that Free Republic shows. You see, seems to me that the source of the articles is more important than the content of the article. Refute the signs and the fact that 53% of the income earners in this country are paying all the FIT for the country? That seems to be something liberals like you are having trouble understanding including who those 53% are.

If it is a politically BIASED site that means that it will lie to promote their cause. Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair(IE, lying).

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Like everyone else here, you ignore the content and attack the messenger. What is it in the content that bothers you the most? Could it be that you cannot refute the fact that 53% of income earners are paying all the net Income taxes in this country thus funding the govt?

It isn't the content that bothers me, it is the lies that are in the article that bother me.

apdst · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
It isn't the content that bothers me, it is the lies that are in the article that bother me.

Really?!?............

winston53660 · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Like everyone else here, you ignore the content and attack the messenger. What is it in the content that bothers you the most? Could it be that you cannot refute the fact that 53% of income earners are paying all the net Income taxes in this country thus funding the govt?

[h=1]Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.[/h]
That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Exactly, both impacting the individual financial conditions of every American. High inflation, rising unemployment plus the added pressure of high interest rates(a product of inflation) made the 81-82 recession worse for the American people than the 2007-2009 recession. That is reality and that is why the JAR of Obama is now below 40%. Again, you need to get your nose out of the books and get out into the real world. How do you explain the Obama approval rating this low and let me know when Reagan's ever got that low?

What on Earth does Reagan's JAR have to do with Obama's? So what if Obama's JAR is lower?

mbig · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
Did you just link me to the politically biased site freerepublic?

Free Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take your rhetoric elsewhere.

The Blaze (web site) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For that articles source "TheBlaze". :lamo

I post on Free-Re myself; and have for many years.
On some issues I'm a 'conservative'.
It's a Giant board. So active You can actually get All your news [And Religion/predominantly Catholic] there. A post-a-second. Headlines from everywhere on the planet.
Use the keyword search for your interest.
It's a parallel universe.. parallel to FOX News that is.

With coordinated effort, they actually can/do "Freep" a Poll on a News website and effect the results significantly.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
If it is a politically BIASED site that means that it will lie to promote their cause. Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair(IE, lying).

What is it about the signs that are prejudiced? Again still waiting for you to explain why 53% of the income earners are paying all the taxes and rather than find a way to collect from the other 47% you want to tax that 53% higher. Isn't that buying votes?

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
It isn't the content that bothers me, it is the lies that are in the article that bother me.

Lies?What lies and be specific

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

What is it about the signs that are prejudiced? Again still waiting for you to explain why 53% of the income earners are paying all the taxes and rather than find a way to collect from the other 47% you want to tax that 53% higher. Isn't that buying votes?

Theblaze skewed the data, or didn't look up the data at all to make their case.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

winston53660 said:
[h=1]Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.[/h]
That’s the portion of American households that owe no income tax for 2009. The number is up from 38 percent in 2007, and it has become a popular talking point on cable television and talk radio. With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.

Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.

Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer. - NYTimes.com

So you are telling me that the 66 million people earning income cannot pay something in FIT for the services they receive?

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
Theblaze skewed the data, or didn't look up the data at all to make their case.

You said their were lies, what lies?

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
You said their were lies, what lies?

"The other 53%"

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 10, 2011

mbig said:
I post on Free-Re myself; and have for many years.
On some issues I'm a 'conservative'.
It's a Giant board. So active You can actually get All your news [And Religion/predominantly Catholic] there. A post-a-second. Headlines from everywhere on the planet.
Use the keyword search for your interest.
It's a parallel universe.. parallel to FOX News that is.

With coordinated effort, they actually can/do "Freep" a Poll on a News website and effect the results significantly.

Just one of the many reasons why online interactive polls are completely worthless.

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

Jryan

mbig

onomatopoeic

Conservative

Conservative

Jryan

Conservative

apdst

Conservative

Jryan

liblady

pirate lover

Conservative

Conservative

Jryan

Jryan

apdst

winston53660

Sheik Yerbuti

mbig

onomatopoeic

Conservative

Conservative

Jryan

Conservative

Conservative

Jryan

Sheik Yerbuti

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires (Continued)

onomatopoeic

pirate lover

onomatopoeic

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency