Joe Miner Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Apparently, you didn't read up on the latest "grand plan" that Obama and Boehner agreed upon, before Boehner backed off. Those are not the Congressional Democrats. It's easy to propose things that you know won't pass.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 Hey you're getting somewhere. 1) The point is that hoping to raise an additional $1 trillion in taxes from the class that already pays an overwhelming share of taxes is a pipe dream, because that additional taxation will come out of someone else's hide, whether it's a further drop in the economy or through more layoffs. The math isn't hard, you cannot have a sustainable tax revenue base if you're overly reliant on one segment, especially when that segment has the ability to shift income. Why do you think tax revenues dropped much faster than the decline in the economy? 2) No matter how much you wish for the economy to improve, it will not happen until Obama is either out of the White House or he has an epiphany of Clintonian proportions. ps - and I wrote the above before seeing Mitch McConnell's comments. 1) They have most of the government printed money and should pay the most since they have the most. 2)Of course not, because everything is Obama's fault. Everything! I think I see the source of your confusion. Corporate profits are supposed to go to shareholders and owners, not consumers. No confusion here. Giving back to the nation that allowed them to prosper in the first place is also what they are suppose to do.
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 1) They have most of the government printed money and should pay the most since they have the most. 2)Of course not, because everything is Obama's fault. Everything! No confusion here. Giving back to the nation that allowed them to prosper in the first place is also what they are suppose to do. And the wealthy already do pay more, much more than the most. Keep playing the populist card. It will get you far in life.
PastaJoe Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 And the wealthy already do pay more, much more than the most. Keep playing the populist card. It will get you far in life. Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. And that gap has gotten far bigger in the past 25 years. In the past decade alone, the wealthiest percentile has seen its income grow by 17 percent, while the middle class has seen its real income fall. The 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross income saw their effective tax rates plummet from 30 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html
finknottle Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 No confusion here. Giving back to the nation that allowed them to prosper in the first place is also what they are suppose to do. Supposed to do? Isn't that why the shareholders and owners pay income tax? Or are they also supposed to distribute cash directly to the consumers? I'm guessing you have a job. When you get a raise, do you offer to give some of it back to your employer?
Adam Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Supposed to do? Isn't that why the shareholders and owners pay income tax? Or are they also supposed to distribute cash directly to the consumers? I'm guessing you have a job. When you get a raise, do you offer to give some of it back to your employer? I actually do! (Not being sarcastic!)
Magox Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 The idea that's its Obama's policies holding back job creation is hysterical. I believe you have seen me say on countless occasions that the economy would be doing poor no matter who is in control, simply because of the deleveraging process that is occuring not just in the private but on the federal, state and local government levels as well. The difference in the level of sucktitude, with Obama's policies, which I've specifically mentioned which ones and not gonna repeat it again, his policies are holding back the economy even further than what we could be seeing. Corporate profits are booming, the fruits of which are staying at the top and not "trickling down" to the consumers. This argument about corporate profits hurts your argument. WIth compnay profits booming, there should be more hiring than what we are seeing. Now the lack of hiring doesnt soley lie on the hands of Obama, of course improved technology and software are a key element to the changing dynamics we are seeing today and no doubt this downturn was a tremendous opportunity for these companies to size down, but there is NO DOUBT, that regulations, higher taxes for the top 1% (which we will most likey see), DOdd Frank Bill, Obamacare, oil rig regs and the EPA's nonsensical stance on climate change are all adding to the uncertainty that we are seeing today.. This isn't speculation Dave, this is a fact, the only thing that is up for debate is how much of a difference and uncertainty that it is adding to the job market. I don't care what the tax rate is, if the economy recovers the budget will of course get better. Why isn't it recovering? We live in a global economy--that point was lost on GG for years--and and no matter what our government does or doesn't do many factors will be out of our governments control. I agree Look what the latest Europo mess with now Italy, stronger US dollar and that hurts many of our companies. Even though the Euro has their challenges, look at a dollar chart and tell me again that the US dollar is getting stronger. China has had to slow growth in the face of inflation--oh no! Hyper inflation!--and that has hurt us, also. And how many jobs simply are not coming back because they are no longer needed? These companies--God bless them, I don't hate corporations at all--are going to of course use CNBC and Fox to bash the government as an excuse for not creating jobs, they don't want to create them, they don't need them! You do know that they interview real actual CEO's and business owners don't you? it's time to take off the blinders Dave. Corporations are doing just fine without these jobs, why should they create jobs they don't need? But people need jobs. So who is to blame? Perhaps no one, but someone has to be blamed. But capitalism is constantly changing and who knows, a new new niche in the market might just open up job oportunities. If not, I really hope we are not heading into permenent situation of over 9% unemployment. That would be a very bad thing and the government would probably have to start making jobs. I dont believe it is permanent, but this is painful deleveraging process that will take some time to sift through... One thing is for certain, if we become a nanny state like many European countries, even in their good years many of them struggled with high unemployment. The good thing is we wont become a nanny state, we have a goodbalance of libs and conservatives and no way the American public will allow this country to swing too far to the left. Just look at the 2008 elections, that was not an endorsement of the GOP, but more so a rejection of Obama's and Pelosis policies. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html Ut oh! Obama saying Soc Sec checks might be on the block! No confusion here. Giving back to the nation that allowed them to prosper in the first place is also what they are suppose to do. umm, no it's not.
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. And that gap has gotten far bigger in the past 25 years. In the past decade alone, the wealthiest percentile has seen its income grow by 17 percent, while the middle class has seen its real income fall. The 400 Americans with the highest adjusted gross income saw their effective tax rates plummet from 30 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112386/poll-best-way-to-fight-deficits.html Thats why you get precisely what you deserve. Hows that Buffalo economy humming along with 40+ yrs of solid Dem power in place? Has the last non government employee turn out the lights yet? Thanks for sharing useless data points. Of course more people will be in favor of voting a tax hike on someone else. Imagine that, people like a free lunch. As for the tax rates, how many times does the same thing need to be explained to you that marginal rate comparison is useless without comparing deductions. Tax revenues are at all time lows not because the rich aren't paying their share, but because the economy is in the crapper. Why have tax revenues declined faster than the economy, even though tax rates have been the same for the last 8 years? You can pine for your unicorn all you want, but the fact remains the economy won't move until Obama does. Now sit down & eat your peas.
Magox Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Boo-hoo, we must protect the wealthy at all costs, they're doing such a great job of creating jobs with the tax cuts Republicans said we had to have to create jobs. The top 1 percent of Americans now take home nearly a quarter of all income and control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth — roughly the same amount as the bottom 90 percent. So??
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 Supposed to do? Isn't that why the shareholders and owners pay income tax? Or are they also supposed to distribute cash directly to the consumers? I'm guessing you have a job. When you get a raise, do you offer to give some of it back to your employer? So because I pay income tax I shouldn't have to pay sales taxes? Or capital gains taxes? Your argument makes no sense
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 And the wealthy already do pay more, much more than the most. Keep playing the populist card. It will get you far in life. The wealthy pay more already because they have the money. Tell me this, how much is the unemployment rate hurting the wealthy? Somewhere near zero. So the non-wealthy are suppose to deal with losing all their income but the wealthy shouldn't pony up another penny on the dollar. Every things Obama's fault
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 The wealthy pay more already because they have the money. Tell me this, how much is the unemployment rate hurting the wealthy? Somewhere near zero. So the non-wealthy are suppose to deal with losing all their income but the wealthy shouldn't pony up another penny on the dollar. Every things Obama's fault Are you being intentionally dense, or you can't add one plus one? If you raise taxes on the rich, that is one less dollar they have. Which is one less dollar they have to invest. Or they can get that dollar back by saving on purchases or by firing an employee. So tell me how your feel good plan will grow the economy our grow more jobs?
Magox Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Are you being intentionally dense, or you can't add one plus one? If you raise taxes on the rich, that is one less dollar they have. Which is one less dollar they have to invest. Or they can get that dollar back by saving on purchases or by firing an employee. So tell me how your feel good plan will grow the economy our grow more jobs? apparently math is a "myth"
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 So?? Can you just tell me what you think the single biggest thing the Obama administration is doing that is killing job growth?
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) apparently math is a "myth" GG's math is solid, as long as you operate on the assumption that the rich are putting money into the economy. Where are the job creators whose asses we are kissing, creating all of these jobs? Edited July 12, 2011 by Buftex
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 Are you being intentionally dense, or you can't add one plus one? If you raise taxes on the rich, that is one less dollar they have. Which is one less dollar they have to invest. Or they can get that dollar back by saving on purchases or by firing an employee. So tell me how your feel good plan will grow the economy our grow more jobs? Oh I get that, but it works the same with deficit spending. If you don't borrow x amount of dollars to pay for Mrs. Fanny's MRI then that is that much less money in the economy to pick up consumer spending and hurts job. That's economics math there sloppy GG's math is solid, as long as you operate on the assumption that the rich are putting money into the economy. Where are the job creators whose asses we are kissing, creating all of these jobs? Another good point, if the wealthy are not investing for what ever. Reason, that's not helping the economy
Adam Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Problem is that the time to raise taxes was ten years ago.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 It's remarkable that the incompetence in the White House makes Bachmann a vialble candidate to some people. Bachmann is also Obama's fault?? My God! So Obama makes Republicans pick idiotic candidates? Republicans are not even responsible for their own stupidity in your strange world. Wow, just wow!
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Bachmann is also Obama's fault?? My God! So Obama makes Republicans pick idiotic candidates? Republicans are not even responsible for their own stupidity in your strange world. Wow, just wow! I thought that was good for a chuckle too! Yes, each time she says something dopey, or is caught in a less than flattering light, she seems to get more popular...wonder why that is... Republicans seem to love playing the victim card!
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Bachmann is also Obama's fault?? My God! So Obama makes Republicans pick idiotic candidates? Republicans are not even responsible for their own stupidity in your strange world. Wow, just wow! No you nitwit, Obama is so far out in left field, that the natural countereaction is the far right. The difference is that I dont have my nose up her arse.
Recommended Posts