Obama having the time of his life

[3rdnlng]

LOL! You sound like a "tea" drinker.

 

Allow me to clarify a few things: real unemployment is more like 12.5% (many baby-boomers like my dad born in '46 are now retiring), our deficits are due in part to the Bush Tax cuts I remember a certain Vice President Cheney who was quoted as saying "deficits don't matter", remember Clinton handed over budget surpluses to Bush W, 2 wars in iraq and afghanistan (one justified by harboring 9/11 attackers, the other unjustified due to erroneious WMD), declining international influence excuse me please clarify (Obama is well received internationally, and has executed a winning foreign policy and he even made the final call to "take out" Bin Laden & went against many in his base in supporting the rebels in Libya despite Lindsay Graham & John McCain as recently as 2 years ago going to Libya in support of Gaddafi, gas hit an all-time under Bush in the late summer of '08, and dipped under $2 per gallon in January '09 after the "unregulated" banking industry crashed our economy, inflation is actually near an all-time low thanks to record low taxes and interest rates have you refinanced your home recently?

 

We can throw sand at each other all day, the problem is their are certain people who would like to see nothing more than our economy to fail and Obama to go with it, these folks tend to be from the Neo-Con Tea Party Right Wing.

 

 

As a business owner myself the question I ask you is, with taxes and interest rates near an all-time low why aren't businesses and the super wealthy "stimulating" our economy? The facts are they are scared or politically motivated and they are sitting on 2 Billion dollars of cash, hence the Fed Chairman Ben Bernake has had to utilize QE2 to pump cash into the markets to add liquidity that the top 2% are failing to provide. "Trickle Down Reagonomics is a failing policy. I say increase taxes back to 39.5% and eliminate the corporate loopholes for companies like General Electric and their 0 percent taxes paid in 2010 and then you'll start seeing growth.

 

You are so wrong in so many ways. With apologies to DCTom--you are an idiot.

 

 

Edit---you are a moron and a !@#$ing idiot.

Edited August 26, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Rob's House]

LOL! You sound like a "tea" drinker.

 

Allow me to clarify a few things: real unemployment is more like 12.5% (many baby-boomers like my dad born in '46 are now retiring), our deficits are due in part to the Bush Tax cuts I remember a certain Vice President Cheney who was quoted as saying "deficits don't matter", remember Clinton handed over budget surpluses to Bush W, 2 wars in iraq and afghanistan (one justified by harboring 9/11 attackers, the other unjustified due to erroneious WMD), declining international influence excuse me please clarify (Obama is well received internationally, and has executed a winning foreign policy and he even made the final call to "take out" Bin Laden & went against many in his base in supporting the rebels in Libya despite Lindsay Graham & John McCain as recently as 2 years ago going to Libya in support of Gaddafi, gas hit an all-time under Bush in the late summer of '08, and dipped under $2 per gallon in January '09 after the "unregulated" banking industry crashed our economy, inflation is actually near an all-time low thanks to record low taxes and interest rates have you refinanced your home recently?

 

We can throw sand at each other all day, the problem is their are certain people who would like to see nothing more than our economy to fail and Obama to go with it, these folks tend to be from the Neo-Con Tea Party Right Wing.

 

 

As a business owner myself the question I ask you is, with taxes and interest rates near an all-time low why aren't businesses and the super wealthy "stimulating" our economy? The facts are they are scared or politically motivated and they are sitting on 2 Billion dollars of cash, hence the Fed Chairman Ben Bernake has had to utilize QE2 to pump cash into the markets to add liquidity that the top 2% are failing to provide. "Trickle Down Reagonomics is a failing policy. I say increase taxes back to 39.5% and eliminate the corporate loopholes for companies like General Electric and their 0 percent taxes paid in 2010 and then you'll start seeing growth.

so your theory is that higher taxes and less loopholes will lead to economic growth?

[BiggieScooby]

so your theory is that higher taxes and less loopholes will lead to economic growth?

 

absolutely, and consider the alternative imagine no taxes. Government cannot exist without revenue. Corporations even in the purest form of laissez-faire economics have proven time and again that they are incapable of acting on the people's best interests. See Adelphia, Global Crossing, Enron, Goldman Sachs, BOA, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

 

While you have bitten into the anti-govt rhetoric that your Tea Party friends spew, you give little consideration to what life would be like without government.

[Adam]

absolutely, and consider the alternative imagine no taxes. Government cannot exist without revenue. Corporations even in the purest form of laissez-faire economics have proven time and again that they are incapable of acting on the people's best interests. See Adelphia, Global Crossing, Enron, Goldman Sachs, BOA, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

 

While you have bitten into the anti-govt rhetoric that your Tea Party friends spew, you give little consideration to what life would be like without government.

While I agree with your point that congress should not have passed the tax cuts while we were at war, we do want to keep taxes low for some corporations. The problem is, some people want the cuts to go to all corporations.

 

They should go to the businesses that are helping to build the country- the construction companies, the energy companies looking to build an alternate infrastructure and rebuild the energy grid, and so on and so forth.

 

Walmart and McDonald's don't need the tax breaks.

[Rob's House]

absolutely, and consider the alternative imagine no taxes. Government cannot exist without revenue. Corporations even in the purest form of laissez-faire economics have proven time and again that they are incapable of acting on the people's best interests. See Adelphia, Global Crossing, Enron, Goldman Sachs, BOA, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

 

While you have bitten into the anti-govt rhetoric that your Tea Party friends spew, you give little consideration to what life would be like without government.

I had the misfortune of studying economics long before the Tea Party was ever conceived. You won't find many economists to back your theory. Even liberal economists understand that freer markets and lower taxes lead to more growth. They argue on grounds of equity.

 

Also, there is a middle ground between massive ever expanding government and no government.

 

Also, it is an indisputable fact that there is not enough income among the rich to tax ourselves out of our current budget deficit, regardless of what tax rates are.

 

And lastly, The Clinton "surpluses" were a result of capital gains taxes on artificial gains that resulted from the tech bubble. When it burst that revenue dried up. Those deficits which came on the heels of the "surplus" occurred before Bush ever passed a budget. Just sayin.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Rob's House

[Taro T]

I had the misfortune of studying economics long before the Tea Party was ever conceived. You won't find many economists to back your theory. Even liberal economists understand that freer markets and lower taxes lead to more growth. They argue on grounds of equity.

 

Also, there is a middle ground between massive ever expanding government and no government.

 

Also, it is an indisputable fact that there is not enough income among the rich to tax ourselves out of our current budget deficit, regardless of what tax rates are.

 

And lastly, The Clinton "surpluses" were a result of capital gains taxes on artificial gains that resulted from the tech bubble. When it burst that revenue dried up. Those deficits which came on the heels of the "surplus" occurred before Bush ever passed a budget. Just sayin.

Well, they were also helped by reduced DoD spending as a result of the end of the Cold War.

 

But even w/ all that, as you alluded to w/ your "surpluses;" we have not had a true budget surplus in my lifetime.

[BiggieScooby]

I had the misfortune of studying economics long before the Tea Party was ever conceived. You won't find many economists to back your theory. Even liberal economists understand that freer markets and lower taxes lead to more growth. They argue on grounds of equity.

 

Also, there is a middle ground between massive ever expanding government and no government.

 

Also, it is an indisputable fact that there is not enough income among the rich to tax ourselves out of our current budget deficit, regardless of what tax rates are.

 

And lastly, The Clinton "surpluses" were a result of capital gains taxes on artificial gains that resulted from the tech bubble. When it burst that revenue dried up. Those deficits which came on the heels of the "surplus" occurred before Bush ever passed a budget. Just sayin.

 

I don't consider our govt spending to be "massive and ever expanding". As the largest economy and being the largest industrialized nation, with respect to our GDP we spend roughly 39.97 percent on our govt, which is well below other democracies. Your Tea Party friends would like to introduce a balanced budget amendment capping spending at 18% which would put us on par to the likes of the Philipines other Plutocracies.

 

The cards are stacked in the top 1%'s favor. The wealthy have only a 15% Capital Gains Tax, 35% Top Federal Income Tax Bracket, Loopholes, and other method's of tax mitigation. Not to mention since the wealthy have a lot of cash they likely have good credit and therefore can take advantage of these historically low interest rates. The top 1% control 35% of all wealth in our country, the next 19% control 51%, the bottom 80% have 15%.

 

Our friend who owns the Buffalo News, Warren Buffett said it best when he said he paid a lower tax percentage than his secretary. We all pay a Regressive tax on cosumption gas, food, clothes, etc.

 

We are in an era of extreme wage gap inequality between those of the top 1% and the bottom 98%. While worker producivity in America is at an all-time high, since 1979 wage growth for the bottom 98% has barely kept on track with inflation. Don't believe me than perhaps you should read this report written in 2006 by two respected economists highlighting the concern they had over "The Growing Gap Between Productivity and Earnings". http://www.national-economists.org/news/bernstein_paper.pdf.

 

Since Ronald Reagon came into office our country has gone along with the prevalent thought of "Trickle Down Economics". Across the board tax cuts for the rich would benefit our country because they would spend more, thus creating jobs. Problem with this is, you give a guy a tax cut he can only consume so much because of the limitation of time. 10 people have more time than 1 person. Problem with "Reagononmics" is that you can't stimulate an economy in reverse.

 

It's time to stimulate from the bottom up via jobs which requires Federal Stimulus and massive expansion of rebuilding our countries infrastructure for the 21st century.

 

You see our main problem isn't political idealogy, it's tax ambiguity that allows for this injustice to continue. The wealthy make more than enough to be taxed at a higher progressive percentage.