Get out of Iraq
Get out of Afghanistan
Cut the Pentagon
Put some money into taking care of our own country?
We’ve built schools in Iraq and abandoned them here. Anyone else see the irony in that?
Why not spend something on that infrastructure, a DIVERSE SOURCE energy policy, and real jobs IN AMERICA? No, that would make sense, and take American minds off of “sports”. Isn’t it interesting that “playing” a professional sport pays better than any job that actually builds something, or saves a life. “Entertainment” is FAR more profitable in our society than “production”.
^ We’ll have none of that good sense in this thread! So if you don’t mind I’m going to disregard everything you’ve said as merely the rantings of a socialist communist liberal bleeding heart heart-bleeder. *
jack, you are repeating a popular myth. Let’s take it apart.
Social Security is currently based on money people pay in for it. Defense is based on taxes.
Entitlements have been cut repeatedly.
And actually, let’s add the one thing YOU won’t accept, but there is a long tradition for: raise taxes. For that matter:
End corporate welfare: welfare logging, ranching, and drilling, where for-profit companies use public lands for a pittance
End tax breaks for hugely profitable companies: Companies juggle their structure so there is an “unprofitable” division in the US - so they get tax breaks - and put the profits overseas.
End the Bush tax cuts. If we raised taxes by a trivial amount, a huge amount of that gap would disappear outright. And before you scream “class warfare,” I’m in that group.
Introduce fair taxes for unearned wealth - wealthy people have more sources of income than working people, and are taxed much less on all those sources of income. You might want to think about how THAT came to be…
^If I were you gramps I’d read on about how the Shrub tax cuts lowered the Capitol gains tax from 39% to 15%. Calling people names to cover your ignorance is well…childish.
We are aware of what the Bush tax cuts did to our economy. It made a bunch of rich guys richer and left the middle class with a $300 deduction in next year’s taxes. It made money cheaper to come by and made it easier for wall street guys to speculate. The thinking behind more revenues from less taxes (considering off shore accounts and overseas manufacturing) is a lie. In short term numbers it proves true (looking at it from one year to another) but in long term numbers (looking at it in four to five year periods) revenue decreases. So in the long run the burden gets shifted to the middle class.
^If I were you gramps I’d read on about how the Shrub tax cuts lowered the Capitol gains tax from 39% to 15%. Calling people names to cover your ignorance is well…childish.
We are aware of what the Bush tax cuts did to our economy. It made a bunch of rich guys richer and left the middle class with a $300 deduction in next year’s taxes. It made money cheaper to come by and made it easier for wall street guys to speculate. The thinking behind more revenues from less taxes (considering off shore accounts and overseas manufacturing) is a lie. In short term numbers it proves true (looking at it from one year to another) but in long term numbers (looking at it in four to five year periods) revenue decreases. So in the long run the burden gets shifted to the middle class.
^You don’t like reading (maybe because you can’t see anymore?) so here the facts. Have your nurse read them to ya:
Clinton raised taxes to 39%. Bush dropped them to 15%. When Clinton did it that it lowered the deficit and produced a surplus. When Bush did it that produced a deficit and put us into debt. Bush’s tax cuts created revenue by the STOCK MARKET (also in my link) and NOT by small businesses and firms. All we did is produce money, not wealth. That’s why I told you that in the span of individual years your comments make sense however in long run numbers its a flat out lie.
And of course if you make a ton of money like Wall Street Fat Cats even 1% is more than what the middle class makes combined. No rocket science there.
This is me replying stating what I stated before: You’re wrong. Your reasoning only creates bubble economies. When tax rates are high people have an incentive to invest in their companies. When tax rates are low they have an incentive to gamble it away since money is cheaper to come by.
“You are confusing (purposely) income tax and capital gains tax. Bush lowered capital gains from 20% to 15%. He lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 39% to 35%. These are points that cannot be argued.”
From Fox Noise: Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.
“Bush’s tax cuts increased Federal revenue. That is because it resulted in higher GDP. And the only way to increase Federal revenue is to increase GDP. That is because since WWII Federal revenue averages 18.2% of GDP. This is another historical fact that cannot be argued.”
“…the financial services industry’s share of corporate profits in the United States was around 10% in the early 1980s but peaked at 40% last year.”
“Clinton never produced a surplus.”
Now you’re being silly. The cons in Congress spent all that time prosecuting Bubba over sex in the white house. Its written history. Bubba’s tax hikes before the Republican Congress helped increase tax revenue and therefor produced a surplus.
“The rest of your post is complete jibberish. “When tax rates are high people have an incentive to invest in their companies”? Where did you come up with that??”
Ask a Republican business man. People don’t hire others based on tax cuts. They hire people based on their needs in the business. Its common sense. Look at what’s happening on Wall Street.
^Don’t go Teabagger on me pops. I was speaking in terms of Economics GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + (eXports-iMports).
Plus the constitution has this thing called the General Welfare and Uniformity Clause, both of which are not so clear on their meaning. Hence Government spending. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 taxing and spending clause.
Charles Brobst Premium Member about 13 years ago
We are next. Those nuke plants in southern California with no earthquake plans are going to go China syndrome. And the country is going to go to Hell.
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
Why not
Get out of Iraq Get out of Afghanistan Cut the Pentagon Put some money into taking care of our own country? We’ve built schools in Iraq and abandoned them here. Anyone else see the irony in that?bueller about 13 years ago
Well put, motive . Somewhere the ghost of Eisenhower is grumblng, “I tried to warn you…”
Dtroutma about 13 years ago
Why not spend something on that infrastructure, a DIVERSE SOURCE energy policy, and real jobs IN AMERICA? No, that would make sense, and take American minds off of “sports”. Isn’t it interesting that “playing” a professional sport pays better than any job that actually builds something, or saves a life. “Entertainment” is FAR more profitable in our society than “production”.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
^ We’ll have none of that good sense in this thread! So if you don’t mind I’m going to disregard everything you’ve said as merely the rantings of a socialist communist liberal bleeding heart heart-bleeder. *
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
jack, you are repeating a popular myth. Let’s take it apart. Social Security is currently based on money people pay in for it. Defense is based on taxes. Entitlements have been cut repeatedly. And actually, let’s add the one thing YOU won’t accept, but there is a long tradition for: raise taxes. For that matter: End corporate welfare: welfare logging, ranching, and drilling, where for-profit companies use public lands for a pittance End tax breaks for hugely profitable companies: Companies juggle their structure so there is an “unprofitable” division in the US - so they get tax breaks - and put the profits overseas. End the Bush tax cuts. If we raised taxes by a trivial amount, a huge amount of that gap would disappear outright. And before you scream “class warfare,” I’m in that group. Introduce fair taxes for unearned wealth - wealthy people have more sources of income than working people, and are taxed much less on all those sources of income. You might want to think about how THAT came to be…
Gypsy8 about 13 years ago
Of course you can afford aid to the Japanese. Just continue to borrow from the Japanese.
WarBush about 13 years ago
^^Bush tax cuts?
WarBush about 13 years ago
^If I were you gramps I’d read on about how the Shrub tax cuts lowered the Capitol gains tax from 39% to 15%. Calling people names to cover your ignorance is well…childish.
We are aware of what the Bush tax cuts did to our economy. It made a bunch of rich guys richer and left the middle class with a $300 deduction in next year’s taxes. It made money cheaper to come by and made it easier for wall street guys to speculate. The thinking behind more revenues from less taxes (considering off shore accounts and overseas manufacturing) is a lie. In short term numbers it proves true (looking at it from one year to another) but in long term numbers (looking at it in four to five year periods) revenue decreases. So in the long run the burden gets shifted to the middle class.
WarBush about 13 years ago
^If I were you gramps I’d read on about how the Shrub tax cuts lowered the Capitol gains tax from 39% to 15%. Calling people names to cover your ignorance is well…childish.
We are aware of what the Bush tax cuts did to our economy. It made a bunch of rich guys richer and left the middle class with a $300 deduction in next year’s taxes. It made money cheaper to come by and made it easier for wall street guys to speculate. The thinking behind more revenues from less taxes (considering off shore accounts and overseas manufacturing) is a lie. In short term numbers it proves true (looking at it from one year to another) but in long term numbers (looking at it in four to five year periods) revenue decreases. So in the long run the burden gets shifted to the middle class.
parkersinthehouse about 13 years ago
brilliant elucidation - thanks motive
WarBush about 13 years ago
^You don’t like reading (maybe because you can’t see anymore?) so here the facts. Have your nurse read them to ya:
Clinton raised taxes to 39%. Bush dropped them to 15%. When Clinton did it that it lowered the deficit and produced a surplus. When Bush did it that produced a deficit and put us into debt. Bush’s tax cuts created revenue by the STOCK MARKET (also in my link) and NOT by small businesses and firms. All we did is produce money, not wealth. That’s why I told you that in the span of individual years your comments make sense however in long run numbers its a flat out lie.
And of course if you make a ton of money like Wall Street Fat Cats even 1% is more than what the middle class makes combined. No rocket science there.
This is me replying stating what I stated before: You’re wrong. Your reasoning only creates bubble economies. When tax rates are high people have an incentive to invest in their companies. When tax rates are low they have an incentive to gamble it away since money is cheaper to come by.
WarBush about 13 years ago
“You are confusing (purposely) income tax and capital gains tax. Bush lowered capital gains from 20% to 15%. He lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 39% to 35%. These are points that cannot be argued.”
From Fox Noise: Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.
“Bush’s tax cuts increased Federal revenue. That is because it resulted in higher GDP. And the only way to increase Federal revenue is to increase GDP. That is because since WWII Federal revenue averages 18.2% of GDP. This is another historical fact that cannot be argued.”
“…the financial services industry’s share of corporate profits in the United States was around 10% in the early 1980s but peaked at 40% last year.”
“Clinton never produced a surplus.”
Now you’re being silly. The cons in Congress spent all that time prosecuting Bubba over sex in the white house. Its written history. Bubba’s tax hikes before the Republican Congress helped increase tax revenue and therefor produced a surplus.
“The rest of your post is complete jibberish. “When tax rates are high people have an incentive to invest in their companies”? Where did you come up with that??”
Ask a Republican business man. People don’t hire others based on tax cuts. They hire people based on their needs in the business. Its common sense. Look at what’s happening on Wall Street.
WarBush about 13 years ago
^Not my fault you don’t understand pops. Next thing you’ll tell me is that its not government’s job to spend.
WarBush about 13 years ago
^Don’t go Teabagger on me pops. I was speaking in terms of Economics GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + (eXports-iMports).
Plus the constitution has this thing called the General Welfare and Uniformity Clause, both of which are not so clear on their meaning. Hence Government spending. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 taxing and spending clause.