View Full Version : Spread the wealth around?
ArlJim78
10-13-2008, 08:52 PM
That's Obama's message to small business people. don't look at it as punishment he says, but its good to spread the wealth around.
WHAT!!!??
wNuqV7N_bj0
This jerk's saying that 99%of small business earn under $250K a year is laughable...the guy is a dimwit in the first degree, or a liar. You choose, but if you choose Obama, say goodbye to our economy and our national security. Lying bastard terrorist-huggers like HUSSEIN will destroy everyone. The guy is a complete zero. Except those Dumbo ears.
pktruckdriver
10-14-2008, 12:17 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
PaceAdvantage
10-14-2008, 12:57 AM
Interesting to note that the very same philosophy espoused by Obama in that video clip helped to lead the U.S. to the brink of financial collapse:
1RZVw3no2A4
slewis
10-14-2008, 01:20 AM
Interesting to note that the very same philosophy espoused by Obama in that video clip helped to lead the U.S. to the brink of financial collapse:
1RZVw3no2A4
PA,
Like I posted on the other thread.... these are the types of propaganda tools which are such B.S. and do nothing except tell the world that the postee is either far right or far left.
The truth is clear to those who understand this game that BOTH SIDES are equally responsible for this mess. NO BANKER SHOULD TAKE MORE RISK THEN HIS BANK CAN ABSORB, yet they all did it, Dems, Reps, whatever. All for the almighty buck.
Any good video producer can put together a montage like this.
So, keep up the good work... everyone keep fiddling, while WASHINGTON is burning.
slewis
10-14-2008, 01:48 AM
This jerk's saying that 99%of small business earn under $250K a year is laughable...the guy is a dimwit in the first degree, or a liar. You choose, but if you choose Obama, say goodbye to our economy and our national security. Lying bastard terrorist-huggers like HUSSEIN will destroy everyone. The guy is a complete zero. Except those Dumbo ears.
Tom,
Im playing devil's advocate here and not an Obama supporter but I ask??
What is the percentage of small business owners that EARN, net taxable income, more than 250,000 k per yr would you say??
As I understand it, it's not on sales or gross, it's on net, taxable income.
I'd say it's very close to 99% that earn under $250,000 net.
The question here (which I dont have an answer to) is:
Will the number of jobs lost due to additional tax burdens levied on those earning $250k plus (there will be some), hurt the economy more then the help the economy will get, when the guy earning $50k, now takes home $3500 more per yr and dumps (spends) part or all of it into the economy?
I would think the latter but I could be wrong.
PaceAdvantage
10-14-2008, 02:16 AM
The truth is clear to those who understand this game that BOTH SIDES are equally responsible for this mess.Noting is ever equal in this world. And it's funny how all of a sudden, both sides are equally to blame when there is some nice and damning evidence against Democrats.
If there wasn't this evidence, I'm sure all this supposed "equality" would go down the shitter in a heartbeat.
I know both sides are to blame. That wasn't the point of my post.
sammy the sage
10-14-2008, 02:46 AM
""I know both sides are to blame. That wasn't the point of my post.""
BUT... :lol: :D ....you NEVER POST anything about the OTHER side in a negative light and are VERY quick to TRY and defend when someone ELSE DOES!
HUSKER55
10-14-2008, 04:20 AM
If you give the guy $3500 more per year and ship more jobs out of the US the guy in the middle now has to pay that back plus more to cover the unemployment and etc of the jobs last before and the new jobs lost now.
Any plan that does not create meaningful jobs here in the US, raise tarriffs and get rid of free trade zones will not workIf memory serves, wasn't it Ross Perot that said if we didn't stop some of the trade agrreements we would regret it. (wasn't that gaft or nafta???)
We didn't and now all I hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs and money go out and very little comes in.
The OB and Bidden have done little, if anything, to stop this. Obviously, Joe hasn't checked the streets in twenty years.
lamboguy
10-14-2008, 06:55 AM
president clinton was lucky with the high tech boom. if i remember right it peaked around the middle of 1999. bush took office and the economy was already in a downtrend. when we went to war, the dollar started to fall from 126 and is now 81 headed for 52. i beleive the main problem this economy has is there is no underlying force behind it where we manufacture things. the high tech boom was good, but it is growing much slower now and we need something else to regain the strength of our currency and real soon
my whole beef with bush is that his policies only lead to a wekening currency where wealth is secretly being confiscated due to the value of the currency.
clinton beleived in strong dollar, bush likes a weak one.
so now we are doing a patch job, how long it last is the real question. maybe 10 years. they are making every move they can think of, so the world economy doesn't completely break down. whether we like the moves or not.
If you give the guy $3500 more per year and ship more jobs out of the US the guy in the middle now has to pay that back plus more to cover the unemployment and etc of the jobs last before and the new jobs lost now.
Any plan that does not create meaningful jobs here in the US, raise tarriffs and get rid of free trade zones will not workIf memory serves, wasn't it Ross Perot that said if we didn't stop some of the trade agrreements we would regret it. (wasn't that gaft or nafta???)
We didn't and now all I hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs and money go out and very little comes in.
The OB and Bidden have done little, if anything, to stop this. Obviously, Joe hasn't checked the streets in twenty years.
Mostly correct in my opinion.
The industrial base of this country(that we used to have) was heavily based on various protectionist policies in the past.
I would say that if one is to be tasked with being the consumer for the world then that consumer should be able to drive a hard bargain as to which of the products are produced where and by whom.
RaceBookJoe
10-14-2008, 11:15 AM
president clinton was lucky with the high tech boom. if i remember right it peaked around the middle of 1999. bush took office and the economy was already in a downtrend. when we went to war, the dollar started to fall from 126 and is now 81 headed for 52. i beleive the main problem this economy has is there is no underlying force behind it where we manufacture things. the high tech boom was good, but it is growing much slower now and we need something else to regain the strength of our currency and real soon
my whole beef with bush is that his policies only lead to a wekening currency where wealth is secretly being confiscated due to the value of the currency.
clinton beleived in strong dollar, bush likes a weak one.
so now we are doing a patch job, how long it last is the real question. maybe 10 years. they are making every move they can think of, so the world economy doesn't completely break down. whether we like the moves or not.
Yes Clinton was very lucky that he had the tech boom, and correct, the market started heading south in spring of '98. Jobs really need to be created here and kept here. I think that Americans have gotten lazy and 'expectful'. You can go to most hotels in this country, and you will have a hard time finding an american working the lesser/lower paying jobs. We need to get off the high horse and back to manufacturing quality products. A ton of jobs could be created in the drilling for oil,natural gas....laying the pipe lines etc...thats just an example. just my rant before I had my morning coffee. rbj
Yes Clinton was very lucky that he had the tech boom, and correct, the market started heading south in spring of '98. Jobs really need to be created here and kept here. I think that Americans have gotten lazy and 'expectful'. You can go to most hotels in this country, and you will have a hard time finding an american working the lesser/lower paying jobs. We need to get off the high horse and back to manufacturing quality products. A ton of jobs could be created in the drilling for oil,natural gas....laying the pipe lines etc...thats just an example. just my rant before I had my morning coffee. rbj
Rbj
I have not seen any employees outside the front desk in 90% of the places I have stayed for the last many years that I would vouch for as unconditionally holding a valid US id.
Of course, they still get those jobs don't they?
Is that because of self-selection among the employers or among the workers?
Maybe I just need to stay in a better class of place.
:eek:
president clinton was lucky with the high tech boom. if i remember right it peaked around the middle of 1999. bush took office and the economy was already in a downtrend. when we went to war, the dollar started to fall from 126 and is now 81 headed for 52. i beleive the main problem this economy has is there is no underlying force behind it where we manufacture things. the high tech boom was good, but it is growing much slower now and we need something else to regain the strength of our currency and real soon
my whole beef with bush is that his policies only lead to a wekening currency where wealth is secretly being confiscated due to the value of the currency.
clinton beleived in strong dollar, bush likes a weak one.
so now we are doing a patch job, how long it last is the real question. maybe 10 years. they are making every move they can think of, so the world economy doesn't completely break down. whether we like the moves or not.
My 2cents worth is that parts of it were broken down , only smoke and mirrors said otherwise and now they/we are pushing in all chips (I think) and if this hand is a loser(50-50 shot-imo) then it's hyper-inflation like never seen before as it could well be world-wide along with a deep deep LONG recession along with an essentially busted middle class here.
Guess you have to hope it's a winner.
Hope and a thousand dollars will get you a cup of coffee!!
No margin of error now boys.
slewis
10-14-2008, 02:34 PM
If you give the guy $3500 more per year and ship more jobs out of the US the guy in the middle now has to pay that back plus more to cover the unemployment and etc of the jobs last before and the new jobs lost now.
Any plan that does not create meaningful jobs here in the US, raise tarriffs and get rid of free trade zones will not workIf memory serves, wasn't it Ross Perot that said if we didn't stop some of the trade agrreements we would regret it. (wasn't that gaft or nafta???)
We didn't and now all I hear is a giant sucking sound as jobs and money go out and very little comes in.
The OB and Bidden have done little, if anything, to stop this. Obviously, Joe hasn't checked the streets in twenty years.
I haven't heard DEMS or REPS move on this issue and the US chamber of commerce is no help either.
But.. I did see Bill Gates testify on capital hill stating we need a UNLIMITED number of HB-1 visas so HE and other businesses can bring in the brightest and the best from around the world.
Uh.. Mr. Gates.... you forgot to add one small detail to that statement.....
You see Mr. Gates wants to bring in "UNLIMITED" bright people who are willing to work for 25% LESS than an American kid will with a similar degree.
Offer $125,000 to an American kid with a masters in Comp science, he'll laugh at you.
Offer it to an Indian (or foreigner from a third world country) with a similar degree.. he'll pack his suitcase and will be in Redmond first thing Monday morning.
Mitt Romney, who for the most part I respect, said on CNN the other day that we CANNOT stop outsourcing and cannot change the trade rules we've set with the world,(as unfair as they seem), it will slow our economy too much.
Romney is talking BS.
Yes, we can. We can be self-sufficient.
Gates and Romney are idiots.
ArlJim78
10-14-2008, 05:53 PM
But.. I did see Bill Gates testify on capital hill stating we need a UNLIMITED number of HB-1 visas so HE and other businesses can bring in the brightest and the best from around the world.
Uh.. Mr. Gates.... you forgot to add one small detail to that statement.....
You see Mr. Gates wants to bring in "UNLIMITED" bright people who are willing to work for 25% LESS than an American kid will with a similar degree.
Offer $125,000 to an American kid with a masters in Comp science, he'll laugh at you.
Offer it to an Indian (or foreigner from a third world country) with a similar degree.. he'll pack his suitcase and will be in Redmond first thing Monday morning.
i'm with Gates on this one. its not to save money, its to get the best. If you think that we're turning out the best and the brightest i've got news for you. we're WAY behind I'm sorry to say.
and its not automatic anymore that they can get a better deal here. lots of Indians becoming millionaires in staying home and getting involved in start-ups over there.
delayjf
10-14-2008, 06:07 PM
What is the percentage of small business owners that EARN, net taxable income, more than 250,000 k per yr would you say??
Has Obama defined that yet?? Is he talking total revenue is he talking net income / Profit.
And the 250K limit per "family", I would assume that means 125k to any individual.
AND, are you willing to trust the most liberal President in the History of the US who enjoys the support of a liberal congress to hold the rates to 1990's levels?????
slewis
10-14-2008, 06:53 PM
Has Obama defined that yet?? Is he talking total revenue is he talking net income / Profit.
And the 250K limit per "family", I would assume that means 125k to any individual.
AND, are you willing to trust the most liberal President in the History of the US who enjoys the support of a liberal congress to hold the rates to 1990's levels?????
Actually, in today's NEWSDAY (new york paper) there was a good article on what the differences the proposed tax changes are for both candidates and it gave 7 or 8 comparisons covering single, married, and over 65.
Most catagories were similar (maybe small differences of a few hundred) with the exception being those who earn over the thresholds Obama mentioned.
They had a significant increase (I think the example they gave for a $250,000 earner, it was increased liability of $6700.
If anyone has a copy of todays Newsday, feel free to correct me with exact numbers.
Obama has mentioned that they would be (for those large earners) the same as during the Reagan years.
ANY plan would have to meet congress approval and many congresssional leaders are being told by constituants to get spending under control.
The biggest difference would be Captial gains tax and Estate tax where Obama's plan calls for much higher (Especially Estate tax which would adversely effect the wealthy) tax rates.
Again, Im playing the devil's V here because regardless of what they say DELAY, we are in serious debt and taxing is the biggest way the govt has to raise capital and balance budgets. They must be carefully implemented or the economy will suffer more.
Lefty
10-14-2008, 07:56 PM
The wealthy, if taxed more will put their risk capital somewhere else. This means less jobs and less business startups. Tax Cuts work. Kennedy knew it, dumbass Obama and dumber ass Biden do not!
wonatthewire1
10-14-2008, 08:23 PM
AND, are you willing to trust the most liberal President in the History of the US who enjoys the support of a liberal congress to hold the rates to 1990's levels?????
OMG! He won?
And I could've voted against? When was the election?
slewis
10-14-2008, 09:03 PM
The wealthy, if taxed more will put their risk capital somewhere else. This means less jobs and less business startups. Tax Cuts work. Kennedy knew it, dumbass Obama and dumber ass Biden do not!
Then how do you explain the crash of our current economy?
(Remember republicans are looking to make tax-cuts (for the wealthy) permanent.)
According to your theory, we now should have low un-employment and a growing economy since with low tax rates there is and has been plenty of "risk capital" around.
What we need now are higher tax burdens on the wealthy (at least back to the Reagan years, if not higher) and serious cuts on the middle class so they dont get into foreclosure and can put extra $$ back into the economy.
The way it is now has NOT worked for the last six years and even without the banking crisis we were heading for a serious correction/recession.
slewis
10-14-2008, 09:16 PM
i'm with Gates on this one. its not to save money, its to get the best. If you think that we're turning out the best and the brightest i've got news for you. we're WAY behind I'm sorry to say.
and its not automatic anymore that they can get a better deal here. lots of Indians becoming millionaires in staying home and getting involved in start-ups over there.
Thats great... stay in the country you were born and become a zillionaire for all I care.
How's about taking employees from the pool in the US.
Employees who's fathers fought in wars, paid taxes and contributed to get this country where it is today.
Where is the patriotism?? Where is the morality??
Let me tell you a quick story:
When I worked on wall st. the guy who sat next to me won a "green card lottery" in his country. He had a modest education, and thats giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was a great guy who I liked alot. He was earning $200,000 per year doing a job that an AMERICAN CITIZEN could do in a heartbeat. It made NO SENSE TO ME.
Does it make sense to you?? Go tell Mr. Gates he's full of shit.
As for the couple of hundred people who he need's ... no worries Bill, you're monopoly will survive.
Lefty
10-14-2008, 10:22 PM
slewis, in regard to your post 22, the Tax Cuts haven't one freakin thing to do with the current situation. Tax cuts put MORE money in the coffers of the Treasury. I hope you don't blve that MORE money is a problem.
Current mess caused by the Dims wanting every poor person to have a house whether he, she could afford it or not. Guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a bunch of other dims said in 2004 that Freddie and Fanny were in no trble and evil R's just didn't want poor people to have houses. Acorn, even harrassed banks and demonstrated at Banks. Bush tried more than 12 times to fix these entities but dims would have no part of it. Dodd got sweetheart mtgs at low rates from these entities. Frank was screwing around with one of the bigwigs at Fannie for yrs. Dodd and obama got a lot of money from Freddy and fannie. Obama denies he's affliated with Acorn, but the records are proof he's a liar.
ArlJim78
10-14-2008, 10:38 PM
Thats great... stay in the country you were born and become a zillionaire for all I care.
How's about taking employees from the pool in the US.
Employees who's fathers fought in wars, paid taxes and contributed to get this country where it is today.
Where is the patriotism?? Where is the morality??
Let me tell you a quick story:
When I worked on wall st. the guy who sat next to me won a "green card lottery" in his country. He had a modest education, and thats giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was a great guy who I liked alot. He was earning $200,000 per year doing a job that an AMERICAN CITIZEN could do in a heartbeat. It made NO SENSE TO ME.
Does it make sense to you?? Go tell Mr. Gates he's full of shit.
As for the couple of hundred people who he need's ... no worries Bill, you're monopoly will survive.
you don't seem to get it, there are not enough graduates with engineering degrees coming from the US schools. I say that as a big pro-US guy who has worked in the engineering field for almost 30 years. its a fact, in an educational sense, the US public school system turns out an inferior product. of course as we all know our kids have the highest self-esteem in the world, lotta good that does though.
personally i think its one of the biggest reasons why we are seeing things decline in the US, education standards have slipped dramatically.
Lefty
10-14-2008, 11:14 PM
right on. Our liberal laden educational system is more in the business of making radicals of our kids than educating them.
slewis, in regard to your post 22, the Tax Cuts haven't one freakin thing to do with the current situation. Tax cuts put MORE money in the coffers of the Treasury. I hope you don't blve that MORE money is a problem.
Current mess caused by the Dims wanting every poor person to have a house whether he, she could afford it or not. Guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a bunch of other dims said in 2004 that Freddie and Fanny were in no trble and evil R's just didn't want poor people to have houses. Acorn, even harrassed banks and demonstrated at Banks. Bush tried more than 12 times to fix these entities but dims would have no part of it. Dodd got sweetheart mtgs at low rates from these entities. Frank was screwing around with one of the bigwigs at Fannie for yrs. Dodd and obama got a lot of money from Freddy and fannie. Obama denies he's affliated with Acorn, but the records are proof he's a liar.
nope.
right on. Our liberal laden educational system is more in the business of making radicals of our kids than educating them.
exactly when did this radical thingy start, is it still going on?
I look around and I don't see many radicals in the over 45 age group.
So, I guess you must be talking about those under 45, funny don't see many bomb throwers there either.
maybe the 20 somethings, oh those would be the group that is defending your ass , nope don't see a ton of radicals there.
every survey/poll I hsve seen says the current 20 somethings are the furthest thing from radicals.
Are you still running that high fever?
slewis
10-14-2008, 11:30 PM
slewis, in regard to your post 22, the Tax Cuts haven't one freakin thing to do with the current situation. Tax cuts put MORE money in the coffers of the Treasury. I hope you don't blve that MORE money is a problem.
Current mess caused by the Dims wanting every poor person to have a house whether he, she could afford it or not. Guys like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a bunch of other dims said in 2004 that Freddie and Fanny were in no trble and evil R's just didn't want poor people to have houses. Acorn, even harrassed banks and demonstrated at Banks. Bush tried more than 12 times to fix these entities but dims would have no part of it. Dodd got sweetheart mtgs at low rates from these entities. Frank was screwing around with one of the bigwigs at Fannie for yrs. Dodd and obama got a lot of money from Freddy and fannie. Obama denies he's affliated with Acorn, but the records are proof he's a liar.
Yes.. we agree.. the tax cuts had no effect on our economic situation, both prior to and after the meltdown....(In which we were entering a bad recession)....which is why THEY HAVE NOT WORKED... get it??? Time to change strategy.
I've said this on other posts .. I'm neither right nor left.. but if people like you keep blaming the left for this.. and other's keep blaming the right... it shows how little everyone knows. Both sides were heavily involved and pushed for de-regulations. Why do you think when the collapse happened Bush AND Pelosi and Reid BOTH urgently asked their constituants to sign on. What other issue have you ever seen such agreement? If you think Dodd and Franks were the reason for this collapse, you need to learn a bit about the international banking markets, and the diffrerence between investment banks and commercial banks and how they trade with each other.
MANY MANY banks were taking on more lending risk then they should have and not keeping credit limits in check.The CEO's of those institutions CERTAINLY were both REPS and DEMS, because at the end of the day, it's about making money. And it's BS you're statement about Bush or Reps or DEMS trying to fix ANY banking laws..
some people .... well you just can't reach.
trust me.
they don't want to be "a thinkin".
Lefty
10-14-2008, 11:54 PM
Yeah, right ddog, you're a freakin genius. william Ayers bombed some police stations and the Pentagon way bk when. Now he's a proffessor in Education in Chicago. He got a boatload of money from a Grant and gave 80 million to Obama to distribute in the educational field. None of it went for books or teachers salaries, it went to make radicals out our kids. There were two proffessors on O'Reilly tonight saying what a great guy Ayers is.
There have been several instances where students have complained when their teachers tried to force leftist ideas on them. When conservatives are invited to speak at colleges they are accosted by radical students. and you don't think liberals have hijacked education?
slewie, one sentence you say tax cuts had nothing to do with this mess then you say they didn't work. Well, they work fine and we had many yrs of prosperity before this mtg mess, caused mainly by dims hit the fan.
Maybe you want a tax raising Marxist in the White House, but I don't.
Ddog's right, he can't be educated and swayed by the truth. Maybe there's hope for you.
slewis
10-15-2008, 12:03 AM
some people .... well you just can't reach.
trust me.
they don't want to be "a thinkin".
Sad but true... You'd think the current crisis would coax people to look at things a bit more objectively.
slewis
10-15-2008, 12:23 AM
Yeah, right ddog, you're a freakin genius. william Ayers bombed some police stations and the Pentagon way bk when. Now he's a proffessor in Education in Chicago. He got a boatload of money from a Grant and gave 80 million to Obama to distribute in the educational field. None of it went for books or teachers salaries, it went to make radicals out our kids. There were two proffessors on O'Reilly tonight saying what a great guy Ayers is.
There have been several instances where students have complained when their teachers tried to force leftist ideas on them. When conservatives are invited to speak at colleges they are accosted by radical students. and you don't think liberals have hijacked education?
slewie, one sentence you say tax cuts had nothing to do with this mess then you say they didn't work. Well, they work fine and we had many yrs of prosperity before this mtg mess, caused mainly by dims hit the fan.
Maybe you want a tax raising Marxist in the White House, but I don't.
Ddog's right, he can't be educated and swayed by the truth. Maybe there's hope for you.
Many years of prosperity?? You mean during the Clinton administration... correct?
Look at the wealth this country had when Bush took office and the budget surplus Clinton provided him with...... now look where we are 8 yrs later..
But the truth is Lefty.. that Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom... nor was Reagan... It's called cyclical economics and history has shown these to take place over time intervals regardless who is in power or who controls the house.
The DEGREE of successful growth or recession can be attributed to who is in office.
NOW.. here is what makes a good president...(Clinton, Reagan) compared to a bad president (Bush w, Carter).
When things are good... institute policy to make them better and keep the ball rolling. When things go sour.... keep the bumps as light as possible and legislate accordingly. .. Sounds like an easy job, Uh?
Case closed.. .. as O'reilly says.. I'll give you the last word...
Lefty
10-15-2008, 12:35 AM
When reagan cut the tax rate many years of prosperity followed. The last quarter of Clinton's admin we were sliding into recession and the economy was revived by the Bush tax cuts. The economy had better numbers during the Bush admin but the liberal media refused to give the man any credit and dumbass liberals bght the media lie about the economy. We are in crisis now mainly due to lib ideas and if you'll do a little research you'll know. Hannity played video clip after video clip of Dems saying Freddie and Fanny were ok.
those are facts that can't be refuted.
Dems count on poorly educated, un-motivated people,and they are breeding them with the schools and entitlement programs.
Bush and the repubs controlled congress totally missed the boat to make serious changes when they were in power.
There is no hope in sight for the rest of my lifetime. We will be a third -world nation in a very years. Even if McCain wins, he has nothing to offer.
Valuist
10-15-2008, 08:04 AM
The tech "boom" was a total fraud......people hyping up tech on fear for Y2K and others driving up stock prices to phony high levels.
When reagan cut the tax rate many years of prosperity followed. The last quarter of Clinton's admin we were sliding into recession and the economy was revived by the Bush tax cuts. The economy had better numbers during the Bush admin but the liberal media refused to give the man any credit and dumbass liberals bght the media lie about the economy. We are in crisis now mainly due to lib ideas and if you'll do a little research you'll know. Hannity played video clip after video clip of Dems saying Freddie and Fanny were ok.
those are facts that can't be refuted.Facts just don't exist in your well insulated set of dreams.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
Log
October 14, 2008
Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants
By TOMMY McCALL
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.
Home
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/14/opinion/14opchart.full.jpg
Bubba X
10-15-2008, 09:17 AM
Facts just don't exist in your well insulated set of dreams.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
Log
October 14, 2008
Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants
By TOMMY McCALL
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.
Home
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/14/opinion/14opchart.full.jpg
10,000% fact.
Then again, everyone knows all the Republican presidents' problems were caused by those wealth-redistributing, middle class-pandering, big government-spending, MainStreamMedia-conspiring Democrat presidents.
4 out of 6 repubs were better than 5 out of 6 dems.
Your conclusions are flawed.
What? All of a sudden Nixon and George W Churchill no longer exist?
Convenient stats. The Dems are steady winners. Repugs have their extreme eccentric loons. Major case little georgie.
Always thought Richard Milhous Nixon was the worst preznit in my lifetime.
Until now. At least Nixon talked to China.
Learn to read. That is not what I said. Read slowly.
4 of the repubs better than 5 out of dems.
Nixon and Bush = 2, ya know, 6-4 = 2?
delayjf
10-15-2008, 11:45 AM
we are in serious debt and taxing is the biggest way the govt has to raise capital and balance budgets
It would be the quickest way to raise revenues in the short term in a bad economy but the long term affects of taking that money out of the economy will prolong the recovery. You can't tax a country into prosperity. All this and we haven't even touched on the spending increases Obama is advocating.
Also, did you say he was going to raise rates up to the 1980's level?? Don't be surprised if he means 1980-81.
Also, for the uninformed, the Clinton "Surplus" is a myth. The federal debt went up every year in Clinton’s administration. He did come within @17 billion of balancing the federal budget in 2000, but Clinton followed that up with a budget in FY 01 that ran a 138 billion dollar deficient.
The national debt has two components, one is made up of public debt (treasury bills, savings bonds, and other debt held by the public) and intergovernmental debt (were the Government borrows money from itself ie. social security). Clinton did pay down "public debt", by increasing the amount of intergovernmental debt (mostly from social security).
You can't spend your way to prosperity.
You can't borrow endlessly your way to prosperity.
You can't promise your way to prosperity.
You can't deficit finance your way to prosperity.
You can't mandate peoples actions to prosperity.
You can't have prosperity without a functional set of rules and regs and an infrastructure to support the rights of those who struggle for it.
Lots of "you can't" here.
You can for a time steal others money/futures and claim YOU earned that prosperity.
That you can do.
It would be the quickest way to raise revenues in the short term in a bad economy but the long term affects of taking that money out of the economy will prolong the recovery. You can't tax a country into prosperity. All this and we haven't even touched on the spending increases Obama is advocating.
Also, did you say he was going to raise rates up to the 1980's level?? Don't be surprised if he means 1980-81.
Also, for the uninformed, the Clinton "Surplus" is a myth. The federal debt went up every year in Clinton’s administration. He did come within @17 billion of balancing the federal budget in 2000, but Clinton followed that up with a budget in FY 01 that ran a 138 billion dollar deficient.
The national debt has two components, one is made up of public debt (treasury bills, savings bonds, and other debt held by the public) and intergovernmental debt (were the Government borrows money from itself ie. social security). Clinton did pay down "public debt", by increasing the amount of intergovernmental debt (mostly from social security).
1. the public debt is not all the debt that is created that is or should be public.
2. "the gvt borrows from itself", that's a myth, that never was their money in the first place.
That is all borrowed from them over there.
those are deferred taxes , that's all that is. A giant TAX increase on somebody, it seems you just hope it's not you.
slewis
10-15-2008, 03:13 PM
It would be the quickest way to raise revenues in the short term in a bad economy but the long term affects of taking that money out of the economy will prolong the recovery. You can't tax a country into prosperity. All this and we haven't even touched on the spending increases Obama is advocating.
Also, did you say he was going to raise rates up to the 1980's level?? Don't be surprised if he means 1980-81.
Also, for the uninformed, the Clinton "Surplus" is a myth. The federal debt went up every year in Clinton’s administration. He did come within @17 billion of balancing the federal budget in 2000, but Clinton followed that up with a budget in FY 01 that ran a 138 billion dollar deficient.
The national debt has two components, one is made up of public debt (treasury bills, savings bonds, and other debt held by the public) and intergovernmental debt (were the Government borrows money from itself ie. social security). Clinton did pay down "public debt", by increasing the amount of intergovernmental debt (mostly from social security).
First of all, it wasn't the "Clinton" surpluses, it was the United States surpluses which occurred during his presidency. How much of his leadership is directly responsible for that (and other presidents) I addressed earlier.
There are Economic upswings and downturns and it is the job of any CEO to navigate the waters. Some do well, some are avg.. some are like GW BUSH.
Of course... people like you, both extreme left and right, will always say their man was responsible when things go well, and blame other side when they don't.
You probably think GWBush is doing a great, great job too.
That's why people like you, whether it be FAR LEFT. or FAR RIGHT.. are in a F. O. G.
By the way.. how are you coping with knowing your state is going to vote dem and help elect the first black pres. in history??
It must be brutal trying to fall asleep at night.
delayjf
10-15-2008, 06:31 PM
There are Economic upswings and downturns and it is the job of any CEO to navigate the waters. Some do well, some are avg.. some are like GW BUSH.
I tend to agree with you, economies ebb and flow. But what specific policy implemented by President Bush can you point to that lead to the economic situation we face today. President Bush called for more oversight for Fannie / Freddie back in 03 – perhaps you didn’t know that. The cause of this country’s current crisis is the housing meltdown which can be traced as far back as the Community reinvestment act. President Bush is culpable for not being more forceful in his warnings or his attempts to regulate Fannie / Freddie – but he certainly didn’t cause the collapse.
By the way. how are you coping with knowing your state is going to vote dem and help elect the first black pres. in history?? It must be brutal trying to fall asleep at night.
I will be fine, but tell me how it feels to back the candidate who has the support and approval of the likes of Chavez, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Castro. Like you, I’m sure they will appreciate Obama’s “leadership”
skate
10-15-2008, 07:16 PM
Tom,
Im playing devil's advocate here and not an Obama supporter but I ask??
What is the percentage of small business owners that EARN, net taxable income, more than 250,000 k per yr would you say??
As I understand it, it's not on sales or gross, it's on net, taxable income.
I'd say it's very close to 99% that earn under $250,000 net.
The question here (which I dont have an answer to) is:
Will the number of jobs lost due to additional tax burdens levied on those earning $250k plus (there will be some), hurt the economy more then the help the economy will get, when the guy earning $50k, now takes home $3500 more per yr and dumps (spends) part or all of it into the economy?
I would think the latter but I could be wrong.
OK ok ok , i see what you are saying, but answer me this first, because until you do, i can't give a full answer to your question.
When you say "tax is not on SALES OR GROSS, it's on NET". Uncertain, maybe, but, when you HAVE NET, isn't that after TAX, unless you conclude "it" to be "NET-NET"?
Usually, people state what they make in terms of gross (before tax), as would a politician when talking about income, but ...
slewis
10-15-2008, 07:30 PM
I tend to agree with you, economies ebb and flow. But what specific policy implemented by President Bush can you point to that lead to the economic situation we face today. President Bush called for more oversight for Fannie / Freddie back in 03 – perhaps you didn’t know that. The cause of this country’s current crisis is the housing meltdown which can be traced as far back as the Community reinvestment act. President Bush is culpable for not being more forceful in his warnings or his attempts to regulate Fannie / Freddie – but he certainly didn’t cause the collapse.
I will be fine, but tell me how it feels to back the candidate who has the support and approval of the likes of Chavez, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Castro. Like you, I’m sure they will appreciate Obama’s “leadership”
Since I'm not an Obama supporter, I couldn't answer that. But If Mccain or Obama could get the approval of that group, I'm all for it.
That group mentioned needs to understand that we carry the most powerful stick in the world, and wont hesitate to use it with full force (something we failed to do in Iraq, where our boys walk the streets with targets on their backs).
Problem is, they and the rest of the world now perceive us as weak and we've fallen pray to "political correctness". Do you think Ike, or Reagan would have allowed US soilders to be fired on from Mosques, and not blown these shrines to dust???? Bush did. Bush disgraced our military, and McCain's definition of "winning" is not my definition.
Anything short of a full democracy and allience with the west is a failure in Iraq, and if I were Pres, I would level the country if I couldn't achieve it.
You know what delay... this might end on something we agree on.
delayjf
10-15-2008, 07:52 PM
Problem is, they and the rest of the world now perceive us as weak and we've fallen pray to "political correctness". Do you think Ike, or Reagan would have allowed US soilders to be fired on from Mosques, and not blown these shrines to dust???? Bush did. Bush disgraced our military, and McCain's definition of "winning" is not my definition.
I understand the sentiment; I especially don't like seeing US casualties resulting from the tactics of Al Qaeda. But nor do I like seeing innocent bystanders killed in the process. Certainly there were mistakes made in the occupation phase of the Iraqi war, the Rumsfield Doctrine worked in the invasion phase but did not work during the occupation. I don't know the percentages of US casualties due to fire from a mosque, but I think most US casualties were due to IEDs, I don't agree that President Bush disgraced out Military. He tried to win the war an minimize casualties on both side. We will never know to what degree he succeeded or failed, but I can't help but think that a "total war" approach would have resulted in a lot more civilian deaths and after all, we were not at war with the Iraqi people.
Anything short of a full democracy and allience with the west is a failure in Iraq
I just don't know how that could have been accomplished by waging total war on Iraqi. No doubt we could turn Iraqi into a parking lot...but what then.
Like the promo on the military channel proclaimed: We were liberators not conquers.
CJ / Isbet, if you’re out there I'd like to get your takes on this.
perhaps you didn't know he called for more lending after that 03 sham.
perhaps you didn't know they did nothing for years when both chambers were repub and the problem was already known, 03 right???
perhaps you didn't know his regulators that had power to step in didn't up until this recent period?
perhaps you didn't know his gvt just called for more lending by fan/fre now???
perhaps you really didn't care to know?
You are right on the total war, we can't kill our way to victory, it's not the populations we need to kill , even if we could, we need them on our side just as has happened so far in Iraq.
You are also right that when invading a country , you have a moral and legal obligation to establish order after the defeat.
We didn't and paid a heavy price for that.
As far as I can tell that was a failure of Rummy and Bush to not understand what would happen once the "gvt" fell.
that was inexcusable as they were warned and should have taken seriuosly the Bosnia , etc experience.
When you chop off the top of regime like that you are bound to get lawlessness.
slewis
10-15-2008, 08:51 PM
I understand the sentiment; I especially don't like seeing US casualties resulting from the tactics of Al Qaeda. But nor do I like seeing innocent bystanders killed in the process. Certainly there were mistakes made in the occupation phase of the Iraqi war, the Rumsfield Doctrine worked in the invasion phase but did not work during the occupation. I don't know the percentages of US casualties due to fire from a mosque, but I think most US casualties were due to IEDs, I don't agree that President Bush disgraced out Military. He tried to win the war an minimize casualties on both side. We will never know to what degree he succeeded or failed, but I can't help but think that a "total war" approach would have resulted in a lot more civilian deaths and after all, we were not at war with the Iraqi people.
I just don't know how that could have been accomplished by waging total war on Iraqi. No doubt we could turn Iraqi into a parking lot...but what then.
Like the promo on the military channel proclaimed: We were liberators not conquers.
CJ / Isbet, if you’re out there I'd like to get your takes on this.
The way we did it in Japan.. (you dont need to go to that military extreme)
You bring as many military/civilians to their knees until they unconditionally surrender.
Delay, why do you think when Putin just rolled into Georgia, the Georgian militia DARED not engage them? BECAUSE THEY KNEW OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
Bush needed to instill that mindset in IRAQ after the Rep guard gave up.
We all agree civilian casualities are terrible, but in the long run, they will be better off.
How is Mutadr Al-Sadr still walking the planet??
Why are the taxpayers of this country "paying factions in Iraq to keep the peace?
Who realistcally believes that this new Gov't doesn't hate us MORE then what was there before??
If I were commander in chief and someone said would you sacrifice one american life to save 20,000 Iraqis (or whoever) I'd say NO... absolutely not.
But our President unneccessarily does this each day by dragging this shit out, all for the sake of some new Govt that will probably align with Iran and look to destroy us.
Tell me about "winning this war and coming home with honor".
I've quite often said on this site that I'm well left on some issues, and WELL right on others... let this be proof.
Secretariat
10-15-2008, 09:02 PM
That's Obama's message to small business people. don't look at it as punishment he says, but its good to spread the wealth around.
WHAT!!!??
wNuqV7N_bj0
Why shouldn't we spread the wealth around?
We worked under the give it to the rich and it'll trickle down to the poor philosophy. We've worked under the let's bail out the richest insitutions in America via a neocon socialism.
Why not spread the wealth around? Whether you're aware of it or not, polcies have been attmepting to do this for years. Just depends on where you are in the income scale.
boxcar
10-15-2008, 09:53 PM
Why shouldn't we spread the wealth around?
Because it's morally wrong to give people free lunches and encourage their dependency on same. How's that for starters?
Furthermore, if you want to spread your personal wealth around, feel free. But don't support a government that will impose its brand of charitable giving upon the tax-paying citizenry.
Boxcar
JustRalph
10-15-2008, 09:59 PM
Free lunch, ? There could never be a problem with that, could there?
Oops.............. maybe
http://charlotte.rhinotimes.com/Articles-c-2008-10-02-185526.112113_FreeLunch_Audit_Tossed_In_Frying_Pan .html
From the article:
The USDA opinion, delivered earlier this week in a memo to school board members, adds fuel to the fire of whether CMS has the authority to conduct more than a limited review of its free and reduced price lunch (FRL) program. Earlier this year an audit of a sample of so-called error prone FRL applications revealed that 62 percent of those screened either did not qualify, or had their benefit reduced. The audit covered 3 percent of applications that listed household incomes within $100 of the cutoff level for eligibility.
Of the 58,834 CMS students receiving free or reduced price meals, 704 applications were checked. Out of that sample, 174 parents never responded to requests to document income and were dropped from the FRL rolls. Another 263 applications were found to contain inaccurate information and had their benefits reduced.
ArlJim78
10-15-2008, 10:51 PM
Why shouldn't we spread the wealth around?
We worked under the give it to the rich and it'll trickle down to the poor philosophy. We've worked under the let's bail out the richest insitutions in America via a neocon socialism.
Why not spread the wealth around? Whether you're aware of it or not, polcies have been attmepting to do this for years. Just depends on where you are in the income scale.
count me out of that program, i don't want to be handed money from rich people. its wrong, that's why. look, you should be free to stand on the street corner and spread your money around to whomever you want. i don't want pinheads like Obama and nancy pelosi deciding who should get what. thats not their role.
its called freedom, Goverment has no right to decide who has too much. its abhorent and marxist. its trickle up poverty policy, everyone ends up with shit.
The way we did it in Japan.. (you dont need to go to that military extreme)
You bring as many military/civilians to their knees until they unconditionally surrender.
Delay, why do you think when Putin just rolled into Georgia, the Georgian militia DARED not engage them? BECAUSE THEY KNEW OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
Bush needed to instill that mindset in IRAQ after the Rep guard gave up.
We all agree civilian casualities are terrible, but in the long run, they will be better off.
How is Mutadr Al-Sadr still walking the planet??
Why are the taxpayers of this country "paying factions in Iraq to keep the peace?
Who realistcally believes that this new Gov't doesn't hate us MORE then what was there before??
If I were commander in chief and someone said would you sacrifice one american life to save 20,000 Iraqis (or whoever) I'd say NO... absolutely not.
But our President unneccessarily does this each day by dragging this shit out, all for the sake of some new Govt that will probably align with Iran and look to destroy us.
Tell me about "winning this war and coming home with honor".
I've quite often said on this site that I'm well left on some issues, and WELL right on others... let this be proof.
I am sorry, you can't apply the Japan lessons to today.
The people you are trying to instill the fear of god(US) in already don't care.
The people that want to take us out or harm us in anyway they can until they get what they want would not blink an eye if we nuked iraq every friday before lunch.
The paradigm is just totally different , not to mention the fact that Japan was a formal war with borders/uniforms and low tech.
none of that holds true now.
It's all different, even our military, no flaming bunch of libs knows it and is working to change their policies and goals for the fights they think they need to be in for the next 20 years.
WW2 , Vietnam, totally not the same.
Sec, because it is not fair to those who earned it.
slewis
10-15-2008, 11:56 PM
I am sorry, you can't apply the Japan lessons to today.
The people you are trying to instill the fear of god(US) in already don't care.
The people that want to take us out or harm us in anyway they can until they get what they want would not blink an eye if we nuked iraq every friday before lunch.
The paradigm is just totally different , not to mention the fact that Japan was a formal war with borders/uniforms and low tech.
none of that holds true now.
It's all different, even our military, no flaming bunch of libs knows it and is working to change their policies and goals for the fights they think they need to be in for the next 20 years.
WW2 , Vietnam, totally not the same.
DDOG,
You might very well be right, but you may very well be wrong.
Historians have noted that many Japanese leaders wanted to fight till the death too, even when it was inevitable. Their soldiers had a similar mentality.
I am very aware of the differences but when you cause enough pain, I truly believe 99% of humans can be broken. It would of course take a great deal of politically incorrect manuevers to accomplish this feat, which is why going in was a bad idea. Unless your prepared to do what has to be done, you cant go.. and Bush shouldn't have.
But shift the situation to Soviet Georgia......
Believe me, had the Georgians tried to put up a fight, Putin was prepared to wipe out the military, kill many many civilians, and capture the govt leaders.
See the difference???
I guess its not a debate because we wouldn't and didn't do it.
Of course now the perception through the eyes of the Arab world is that the USA is "weak".
And they support Obama, their homey, that citizen of the world.
dav4463
10-16-2008, 12:14 AM
How many of you think it is noble to spread the wealth and help your fellow man who is less fortunate?
If you hit the only winning pick 6 ticket for let's say $450,000. You should keep $50,000 and give $400,000 back to the others who weren't as smart as you but tried and deserve to keep playing the game.
See, everybody will feel good that way.
boxcar
10-16-2008, 12:30 AM
How many of you think it is noble to spread the wealth and help your fellow man who is less fortunate?
If you hit the only winning pick 6 ticket for let's say $450,000. You should keep $50,000 and give $400,000 back to the others who weren't as smart as you but tried and deserve to keep playing the game.
See, everybody will feel good that way.
Human nature being what it is, I'd lay you big odds that not everyone would be happy because some would think the winner was still being greedy by keeping too much for himself.
Boxcar
PaceAdvantage
10-16-2008, 02:03 AM
Sad but true... You'd think the current crisis would coax people to look at things a bit more objectively.
Where was all this objectivity during the last eight years, when everything but the kitchen sink was blamed on Bush and the Republicans?
Now ya'll want objectivity and understanding and deep thinking, just because Democrats might be equally to blame? Puhleeze.
How many of you think it is noble to spread the wealth and help your fellow man who is less fortunate?
If you hit the only winning pick 6 ticket for let's say $450,000. You should keep $50,000 and give $400,000 back to the others who weren't as smart as you but tried and deserve to keep playing the game.
See, everybody will feel good that way.
yeah, but we had a hell a party giving back the 400K :D
I always bend over backwards to lift up the little peeps.
wonatthewire1
10-16-2008, 05:42 PM
Let's hope that some of the wealth is spread around!
Especially from that guy Fuld who oversaw Lehman Bros - what was it he got, like $350 million over 8 years and flushed 'em down the toilet!
Secretariat
10-16-2008, 07:39 PM
Because it's morally wrong to give people free lunches and encourage their dependency on same. How's that for starters?
Furthermore, if you want to spread your personal wealth around, feel free. But don't support a government that will impose its brand of charitable giving upon the tax-paying citizenry.
Boxcar
Free lunch? Were you born yesterday? Are you unaware of the corporate welfare that's been given away for years, and the continual eroding of effective tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest individuals in the US?
We've been told and told we need to keep lowering the tax rates on business. We keep doing that. We need to lower the capital gains. We do and things seem to get worse. We give the oil companies who are making greater profits than they've ever made taxpayer money. We give 700 billion plus to the AIG's of the world who the next week are scheduling resort vacations for their executives. We gave the wealthy the biggest cuts in their tax rates over the last eight years, and we're now facing the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.
Free lunch? You've bought into this absurdity that "if" we just get out of the way and keep cutting taxes that will be the solution to everything. It is why McCain doesn't get it either. He belevies he can cut 18 billion on earmarks, and cut taxes for everyone, and everything will get better. It's absurd. He doesn't even look at the revenue side.
So free lunch? Please, if you watched the Lehman Brothers CEO, you'd understand that there are some guys who ALWAYS get a free lunch.
delayjf
10-16-2008, 07:44 PM
Free lunch? Were you born yesterday? Are you unaware of the corporate welfare that's been given away for years, and the continual eroding of effective tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest individuals in the US?
Not sure how you can make the above claim when the top 50% are paying over 95% of the taxes. Sounds to me like the rest of us are getting a free lunch.
wonatthewire1
10-16-2008, 07:52 PM
Not sure how you can make the above claim when the top 50% are paying over 95% of the taxes. Sounds to me like the rest of us are getting a free lunch.
tell me about it - I'm so tired of supporting everyone
Secretariat
10-16-2008, 08:12 PM
Not sure how you can make the above claim when the top 50% are paying over 95% of the taxes. Sounds to me like the rest of us are getting a free lunch.
Go to the IRS site, and look at the corporation tax rates over the last 50 years as well as the individual rates which have gone from a high of 92% in 1953 down to 35% for the top bracket.
There's a great graph on the page below I'm having difficulty posting here.
http://www.cbpp.org/10-20-03tax-fact.htm
A prescient omen from this 2003 article actually undervalued the effects of this continuation.
"Proposed new corporate tax breaks would worsen the deficit substantially over time. Pressure to cut corporate taxes is likely to intensify this fall as Congress acts to comply with a recent World Trade Organization ruling that tax subsidies for U.S. exporters violate trade agreements. Repealing these export subsidies would raise about $50 billion in revenues over 10 years.
Supporters of corporate tax cuts are using this as an opportunity to push for new corporate tax breaks that go far beyond those being repealed.
Indeed, both the measure introduced by House Ways and Means Chairman Thomas (H.R. 2896) and the measure adopted by the Senate Finance Committee on October 1 (S. 1637) include significantly more than $50 billion in new corporate tax cuts. Both bills use timing gimmicks to hide their true cost. The House bill includes a number of tax cuts that artificially expire before the end of the ten-year period; these tax cuts would very likely be extended, making the bill much more costly. The Senate bill contains several tax cuts that do not become fully effective until late in the decade; thus it is deficit-neutral over the first ten years but will cost billions of dollars annually once the tax cuts are in effect."
DeanT
10-16-2008, 08:29 PM
Not sure how you can make the above claim when the top 50% are paying over 95% of the taxes. Sounds to me like the rest of us are getting a free lunch.
9 out of every 10 tax dollars come from the top 5% in your country. It is not dissimilar to mine. I'm middle class and I have no problem admitting I am getting a free ride on most things.
But it does not mean I am happy about it. I abhor class warfare. It is beneath us, imo, and it is against basic principles that both our countries have been built upon.
Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%
The Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/) has published Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf):New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.
Sec, given a global economy, a 35% tax rate in the US and a 14% rate in
Ireland, where would a corporation set up a new factory?
Hint, Xerox has new facilities that do a lot of work formerly done in Webster, NY, USA. Faith and Begora!
JustRalph
10-16-2008, 10:28 PM
Sec, it doesn't matter what our rate is, as long as it is the 2nd highest in the world (behind japan) then businesses in other countries will thrive and have a leg up......... end of story..........remember, corporations don't pay corporate taxes..........their customers do
boxcar
10-16-2008, 11:55 PM
Free lunch? Were you born yesterday? Are you unaware of the corporate welfare that's been given away for years, and the continual eroding of effective tax rates on corporations and the wealthiest individuals in the US?
I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. But one could never tell that by talking to you! As JR said, and as I have often said on this forum, corporations really don't pay taxes. It's a shell game. It's smoke and mirrors. Oh...yes, corporations go through the motions of technically paying taxes, but those taxes are built into the selling prices of their goods and services, which means -- for guys like you who don't get it or don't want to get -- we consumers wind up footing the tax bill because we're always at the bottom of the tax chain. Corporations recoup all their taxes back. This is one of the major reasons why the income tax system should be scrapped altogether and we should go with a completely transparent and simple national sales tax system.
Boxcar
slewis
10-17-2008, 12:12 AM
Sec, it doesn't matter what our rate is, as long as it is the 2nd highest in the world (behind japan) then businesses in other countries will thrive and have a leg up......... end of story..........remember, corporations don't pay corporate taxes..........their customers do
Sure Ralph,
Sounds like your buying into lines like this:
The corporate tax in the US is 35%.. The corporate tax in Ireland is 11%.
Where are people going to start up a new business, here or Ireland?
So I opened a book and looked at the skyline of the business capital of the USA, New York.
I saw the Citicorp building, The Met Life Building, The Amex building, etc.
Then I tried to find the skyline of that great business hub everyone's flocking to for low rates and skilled workers : Ireland.
All I could find are pictures of dozens of sheep and some bearded men with long sticks.
Give me a break......
In this country, if you want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, just say so. or.. implement what Huckabee wanted to do. Have a value added tax or consumer tax.
They have it in the UK. It adds 23% to EVERYTHING (goods) you buy.
But dont bull sh..t the american public about trickle down economics in an economy like this.
The reality here is that McCain and Republican views are geared for the wealthy, and Obama for the mid and lower classes. That simple, and that's just fine depending on your personal situation.
The people in YOUR state were the primary reason Bush won re-election.
They are hard working people who have taken it on the chin. They are being hoodwinked again.
So if they vote for McCain again, they WILL be in the same situation as before. The primary reasons "trickle down" economics had a positive effect during Pres Reagan's run, was that we were poised for an Econmic upturn.
We are NOWHERE near that at this time, and it WONT work.
DeanT
10-17-2008, 01:04 AM
Of course a low tax and low regulation environment works for a country. It worked in two major periods of economic history as a brilliant shot in the arm. Not to mention the reason why the US is the strongest economy in world history and probably will be for centuries is because of it.
If low business and personal taxes did not work, we'd all be reading about the era of Stalin and Breschnev, not Reagan and Kennedy.
As for the Irish tax, saying it has not made a difference is pure nonsense. They have grown rapidly and have changed their economy. A quick google search can tell you that.
Edit: Just for good measure I did a google search:
COMPANY PROFITS: FINANCE MINISTER Brian Lenihan stressed in his Budget speech yesterday that the Republic's 12.5 per cent tax on corporate profits would not be increased.
The rate is among the lowest charged on company profits in the EU and is the key to attracting mobile investment and multi-national employers to the State.
Before unveiling a number of tax measures aimed at boosting business, Mr Lenihan said the rate has been a key element of the Republic's tax system and a cornerstone of its industrial development over the last decade.
"I want to emphasise that this rate of tax is not for changing upwards and it will continue to be a vital part of Ireland's economic brand," he said.
Mr Lenihan added that the low company profits tax rate was vital to the "vibrant and modern business base" on which the Republic's economic prospects depend.
According to recent reports, representatives of both the British and US governments have raised the issue of the low tax rate with the Government because of its effectiveness in attracting capital from other jurisdictions.
A number of British companies recently announced their intention to establish corporate headquarters in Ireland in a move to avoid the higher taxes levied in that country on company profits.
Xerox did chose Ireland over Webster.
Google map Webster NY and look at the acres empty parking lots that were once overflowing and forcing people to park along the roads. You could land 747s there now. While you are at it, check out Greece NY, and look at all the empty lots that used to house about 20 Kodak buildings....all torn down to avoid the tax levies.
The guy on the corner of Long Pond waving is me.
JustRalph
10-17-2008, 11:16 AM
http://www.fairtax.org/
sure I am for a fair tax
boxcar
10-17-2008, 12:52 PM
Xerox did chose Ireland over Webster.
Google map Webster NY and look at the acres empty parking lots that were once overflowing and forcing people to park along the roads. You could land 747s there now. While you are at it, check out Greece NY, and look at all the empty lots that used to house about 20 Kodak buildings....all torn down to avoid the tax levies.
The guy on the corner of Long Pond waving is me.
And the real reason these companies our fleeing our shores is because they're prices aren't competitive since taxes are computed into their costs and ultimately are passed on to the consumer. Change the tax system and prices would drop radically. Tax costs would no longer have to be factored into selling prices on top of all the other business costs.
Boxcar
9 out of every 10 tax dollars come from the top 5% in your country. It is not dissimilar to mine. I'm middle class and I have no problem admitting I am getting a free ride on most things.
But it does not mean I am happy about it. I abhor class warfare. It is beneath us, imo, and it is against basic principles that both our countries have been built upon.
That class warfare is a tired old dog that won't hunt.
It never really did.
Which you would rather do in the current system, pay lots of taxes(your top 1%) or pay no taxes (the bottom whatever)?
I KNOW the "class" I like.
That's not class warfare????
or is it?
Can class warfare only be waged UP , NOt DOWN???
Doesn't sound like a war , more like a slaughter.
I am sorry , but the US wasn't built on trickle down , don't know about Canada.
And the real reason these companies our fleeing our shores is because they're prices aren't competitive since taxes are computed into their costs and ultimately are passed on to the consumer. Change the tax system and prices would drop radically. Tax costs would no longer have to be factored into selling prices on top of all the other business costs.
Boxcar
Lots of companies are not fleeing our shores, they are being required to make stuff at a certain % in certain places in order to get established in other countries.
There are many reasons some valid , some questionable outside of tax rates as to why companies site where they do.
Of course a low tax and low regulation environment works for a country. It worked in two major periods of economic history as a brilliant shot in the arm. Not to mention the reason why the US is the strongest economy in world history and probably will be for centuries is because of it.
If low business and personal taxes did not work, we'd all be reading about the era of Stalin and Breschnev, not Reagan and Kennedy.
As for the Irish tax, saying it has not made a difference is pure nonsense. They have grown rapidly and have changed their economy. A quick google search can tell you that.
Edit: Just for good measure I did a google search:
Tax policies of Stalin and the others had nothing to do with that stuff.
Low taxes will help if you are overtaxed, they will be of harm if you are not.
Each instance is different and "low" would need assessed.
Same for regulations, low and high are not valid measures.
Just effective or not.
Actually we had some very high rates as compared to current back in the 40-50-60-70's timeframe.
Seemed we did ok then.
Arguing tax rates in this country now is like arguing loan repayment plans with a beggar.
Sec, it doesn't matter what our rate is, as long as it is the 2nd highest in the world (behind japan) then businesses in other countries will thrive and have a leg up......... end of story..........remember, corporations don't pay corporate taxes..........their customers do
But we would save much in collection costs if corps paid all taxes, no?
How would you like to file nothing, no forms , no lawyers, no nothing.
If they paid all taxes and we paid none, then it's a wash right.
our burdens just get moved to them.
Either way you are still paying for "it".
It's just a matter of who collects them.
DeanT
10-17-2008, 03:25 PM
Ddog,
The fact remains that raising any taxes in a time of recession is a job killer. There is one ideaology that says if you raise taxes to redistribute wealth you will help an economy, and that is Marxism. That is the only one. When you want to stop people from smoking you raise taxes on smokes, when you want to stop businesses from hiring, you raise taxes on business. Obama knows this and so does everyone else.
McCain now has his issue. I have been waiting for this and Joe the Plumber has given it to him. Up here we just went through an election. Three parties, two of which wanted new taxes, one who did not. The one who did not won easily as everyone knows you do not tax business in a downturn.
This election might end up being close. After all the last bastien of Marxism was Albania and that crumbled in 1992. They now have a flat tax of 10%. They grew at like 8% this year. I can not see America going to welath distribution policies of 1992 Albania anytime soon. You aren't the richest country in the world because you are stupid.
chickenhead
10-17-2008, 03:58 PM
some might wonder why we need to constantly overhaul, and make more convoluted, our tax policies every few years. Which we are going to get again, regardles of who gets elected.
Taxes are the way you're supposed to pay the bills, they aren't an end unto themselves. They have become simply a way to buy votes, from both parties.
Pay the bills! That's all I ask. As a relatively young person who already knows SS and Medicare will long be bankrupted by the time I get around to them. Just leave us a little something for chrissakes. We don't need to put it ALL in hock, do we? Is this society really that greedy , that shortsighted?
Instead we've got people thinking we need to run stimulus packages 24-7-365. We don't need decades of stimulus. We need to pay our bills. So when times are bad, like now, we can run a deficit without pushing us over the edge.
Secretariat
10-17-2008, 05:28 PM
I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. But one could never tell that by talking to you! As JR said, and as I have often said on this forum, corporations really don't pay taxes. It's a shell game. It's smoke and mirrors. Oh...yes, corporations go through the motions of technically paying taxes, but those taxes are built into the selling prices of their goods and services, which means -- for guys like you who don't get it or don't want to get -- we consumers wind up footing the tax bill because we're always at the bottom of the tax chain. Corporations recoup all their taxes back. This is one of the major reasons why the income tax system should be scrapped altogether and we should go with a completely transparent and simple national sales tax system.
Boxcar
Whew...Well, this is getting past the initial response on corpprate taxes. btw.. I wouldn't take JR's advice. After all he voted for Bush.
Seroiusly though.,,,do check out this article by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/10-20-03tax-fact.htm
It begins thus (and this was in 2003)
"A new Center report, The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues, provides context for the debate over corporate tax-cut legislation now before Congress.
It shows that corporate tax revenues have fallen to historically low levels as a share of total federal revenues and of the economy. Despite the weakening of corporate tax revenues, and despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office and other organizations* now project very large federal budget deficits over the coming decade and beyond, Congress appears poised to shower costly new tax breaks on corporations."
This was in the 2003 GOP Congress and GW's admin.
Now a few comments relating to your contention that (a) corporations don't pay taxes, it's a shell game, and (b) we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
First (a). If it's a shell game, why would corporations even care about the tax rate, they'd just pass it onto the consumer. It'd be irrelevant to their bottom line. The truth is corporations care very much about paying taxes (or moslty avoiding them). Corporations paid significantly more years ago, and our economy did a helluva lot better than it's doing now, and we didn't have massive govt. deficits. Now, the contention the cost is passed on to the consumer. Well, fine. The consumer has a choice whether or not to buy from that corporation. It's one of the strongest powers a customer has - not to buy. Using your argument that corporations recoup all their taxes back, well, then if whether we taxed them zero percent or 100 percent it wouldn't matter. The fact is they don't get all their tax money back. Now, when Biden was chided for saying corporations were unpatriotic that avodied taxes by offshoring, he was saying corporations care very much about avoiding taxes. Someone has to pay for these wars. They're not free. This is what the tax cutters with less revenue coming in just don't get. Corporate tax revenue is significantly down if you look at the graph posted in the article.
Second (b). We have a high rate in relation to the world, but not a high effective tax rate. In other words, with all the loopholes corporations pay a much lower effective tax rate than most of the major European industrialized
nations. In other words the actual tax revenue as a percentage of GDP coming from corporations is much lower in American than in the bulk of these other industrialized nations. Look it up. Effective tax rate.
Like Joe Biden, I want to repeat that one phrase from the Center's article:
"It shows that corporate tax revenues have fallen to historically low levels as a share of total federal revenues and of the economy."
Now as to a national sales tax system that is a regressive tax that affects the poor significantly more than the rich. We can all buy a loaf of bread, but if it is taxed equally, then the guy making minimum wage pays a larger percent of his taxes in relation to his income than a millionaire. I might be persuaded on a national sales tax on big ticket items on non-essentials or luxuries like yachts, expensive jewelry, spas, sutff like that, but on food, energy, health care, the basic needs of life, this is a bad, bad idea.
Taxes may be a necessary evil, but they are always a bad idea. Far better to cut, no slash government spending. That is always good. The less they spend the better we all are. The smaller the government interaction with people the better.
slewis
10-17-2008, 07:12 PM
Taxes may be a necessary evil, but they are always a bad idea. Far better to cut, no slash government spending. That is always good. The less they spend the better we all are. The smaller the government interaction with people the better.
Tom,
If McCain wins, and he doesn't tax, you need to answer the following:
1) Where the money is going to come from to continue paying the factions in Iraq to keep the peace and to appear as if the "surge" is a success.
2) Does it bother you that at this very moment, we are taking Joe the Plumber's hard earned money, and re-distributing it in Iraq to people who hate us and want to kill us.
If I earned $300k per year I would have no problem paying 5-8% more in tax a year, even to "re-distribute" it to the real Joe the Plumber, (who's somewhat of a fraud, no fault of McCain).
But Id have a HUGE problem re-distributing it to Allah Al-Plumbr in Iraq so he doesn't shoot at us or anyone else.:lol:
I would rather my taxes went to help people who are legitimately in need of help and who want to be free and stand on their own than waste it here on trash that is looking for a lifetime hand out.
slewis
10-17-2008, 07:43 PM
I would rather my taxes went to help people who are legitimately in need of help and who want to be free and stand on their own than waste it here on trash that is looking for a lifetime hand out.
Tom Tom Tom....
We both bleed red white and blue...... and we both know those in Iraq want to free......
free of : The USA. The Jew. The Christian. Woman's rights. and on and on....
Now, which of these are more likely to slit your throat??????
:bang:
Indulto
10-17-2008, 08:10 PM
Tom Tom Tom....
We both bleed red white and blue...... and we both know those in Iraq want to free......
free of : The USA. The Jew. The Christian. Woman's rights. and on and on....
Now, which of these are more likely to slit your throat??????
:bang:slewis,
That post should be the post of the day. :jump:
JustRalph
10-17-2008, 08:42 PM
Tom Tom Tom....
We both bleed red white and blue...... and we both know those in Iraq want to free......
free of : The USA. The Jew. The Christian. Woman's rights. and on and on....
Now, which of these are more likely to slit your throat??????
:bang:
I am worried about Obama slitting the bottom of the pocket my wallet sits in............why should I believe Nancy and Harry won't collude with Obama to raise taxes on everybody. Why should I believe a Chicago politician when he talks about taking my money? Sometimes a Duck is a Duck!!
Tom Tom Tom....
We both bleed red white and blue...... and we both know those in Iraq want to free......
free of : The USA. The Jew. The Christian. Woman's rights. and on and on....
Now, which of these are more likely to slit your throat??????
:bang:
HUSSEIN and McCain already slit it when they voted for the Sell out bill.
The money going to Iraq isn't going to booze and dope like much of it here does. Share the wealth, pass the crack.
McCain admires Theodore Roosevelt....
So what did TR say about spreading wealth around?
“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.”
“The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. … We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”
“The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted.”
– Theordore Roosevelt, “The New Nationalism,” 1910
“Here in this city of the State of Lincoln I can set forth the principles for which we stand to-day in the words which Lincoln used fifty-four years ago, when in speaking of the then phase of the eternal struggles between privilege and justice, between the rights of the many and the special interest of the few, he said:
“That is the real issue. That is the issue which will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time. The one is the common right of humanity, the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says: ‘You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who bestrides the people of his own nation and lives from the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
“Were Lincoln alive to-day he would add that it is also the same principle which is now at stake when we fight on behalf of the many against the oppressor in modern industry whether the abuse of special privilege be by a man whose wealth is great or is little, whether by the multimillionaire owner of railways and mines and factories who forgets his duties to those who earn his bread while earning their own, or by the owner of the foul little sweat-shop who coins dollars from the excessive and underpaid labor of haggard women. We who stand for the cause of progress are fighting to make this country a better place to live in for those who have been harshly treated by fate; and if we succeed it will also really be a better place for those who are already well off. None of us can really prosper permanently if masses of our fellows are debased and degraded, if they are ground down and forced to live starved and sordid lives, so that their souls are crippled like their bodies and the fine edge of their every feeling blunted. We ask that those of our people to whom fate has been kind shall remember that each is his brother’s keeper, and that all of us whose veins thrill with abounding vigor shall feel our
obligation to the less fortunate who work wearily beside us in the strain and stress of our eager modern life.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, “The Case Against the Reactionaries,” 1912
.................................................. ............................
Creeping socialism.From TR.
And even some from honest Abe Lincoln.
Good thing they don't post here :cool:
PaceAdvantage
10-17-2008, 10:44 PM
Looks like Hcap got the latest talking points email....WTG fella! How many message boards did they instruct you to post this on today?
Indulto
10-17-2008, 10:46 PM
Nice work, hcap. I found it interesting how quickly "spread the wealth" morphed into "redistribution of wealth" by some right-recliners here.
Hey, Tom.
Any idea how extensive the "booze and dope" problem is -- both here and in Iraq -- among the groups you assume would receive this windfall?
DeanT
10-17-2008, 11:32 PM
Hcap,
C'mon, you are sharper than that.
That was written well before the progressive tax system. The one where now the top 5% pay over 90% of the bill for us all.
It was once not equitable, but now in an age where a guy like Bill Gates will pay more tax in 15 minutes than me and you will pay in our lifetimes has pretty much rectified that.
Just a question. If a guy makes $1M a year how much should he pay. He already pays about $400,000. How much more money do you want from him to consider it fair? Do you want more than half of what he makes? Three quarters? Should he work from January to September for the government and October to December for his family? Gimme a number. How much of his money do you want.
Hcap,
C'mon, you are sharper than that.
:lol: Wanna bet? :lol:
DeanT
10-17-2008, 11:50 PM
It's just to me the strangest argument. This class warfare one.
It's like having a neighborhood where there are four houses and they want to share the cost and build a fence. Bill pays for 90% of the fence and the other three guys chip in 10% and then they run around saying how unfair Bill is to them.
Completely strange to me. But I am just a dumb handicapper.
boxcar
10-17-2008, 11:54 PM
Nice work, hcap. I found it interesting how quickly "spread the wealth" morphed into "redistribution of wealth" by some right-recliners here.
"Spread the wealth" is merely the euphemistic way of expressing what it really is, i.e. redistribution.
Boxcar
It's just to me the strangest argument. This class warfare one.
It's like having a neighborhood where there are four houses and they want to share the cost and build a fence. Bill pays for 90% of the fence and the other three guys chip in 10% and then they run around saying how unfair Bill is to them.
Completely strange to me. But I am just a dumb handicapper.
Better analogy;
A neighborhood chips in and sends one guy to Medical School, he comes home and won't tell anyone what he learned unless you give him your house.
rastajenk
10-18-2008, 12:46 AM
and the young doctor, becoming rich in spite of the high cost of doing business in his neighborhood, grows his business, and later opens a regional specialty medical center, or a research firm, or something comprising dozens of well-paying jobs that reflect well on the community; he gives generously to his alma mater and favored charities; and he is the force behind the scene when the local HS football team gets good, new uniforms after their old ones were stolen from the team bus last week. He does these things because he wants to affect change in the most efficient way, and he does not want to be forced to be a change agent using the most inefficient ways. He doesn't want the government to be an anchor on his philanthropy.
Greyfox
10-18-2008, 01:18 AM
So the young doctor deliberates.
Finally he advises his patients,
"You know the best condom that you can use?"
(silence.)
"It's a 40 cent stamp. Put it on the end of your d--k.
It won't come for a month." ;)
Hcap,
C'mon, you are sharper than that.
That was written well before the progressive tax system. The one where now the top 5% pay over 90% of the bill for us all.It was written after the first incarnation of the Robber Baron style of Capitalism. When Capitalism produced it's own version of royalty. Child labor. 18 hour days, worker abuse on a grand scale. Company stores. Greed leading to unprecedented concentration and redistribution of wealth. An "invisible hand" of social conscience rightfully made a "market" correction ;) Adam Smith works thru social movements as well.
We fought a war to get out from under King George. Now we are faced with robber baron greed again, this time around on Wall Street. Greed is not good all the time.
Coincidentally another King George is pretty much in the way.
DeanT
10-18-2008, 11:00 AM
I'll try this again. I honestly want to know. Everyone who wants to tax people more never tell us.
Just a question. If a guy makes $1M a year how much should he pay. He already pays about $400,000. How much more money do you want from him to consider it fair? Do you want more than half of what he makes? Three quarters? Should he work from January to September for the government and October to December for his family? Gimme a number. How much of his money do you want.
Their goal is communism, plain ans simple. Libs hate people who achieve because it makes them look bad. Libs love to give away other people's money. Drunken murderers like Fat Head Ted Kennedy get a pass. Families of drunks and druggies have an exempt clause. George Soros has all themoney in the world and wnat to kep it that way. Soros speaks, libs dance.
Boris
10-18-2008, 01:03 PM
I'll try this again. I honestly want to know. Everyone who wants to tax people more never tell us.
Their goal is equality. Two classes of people - Government (liberals) and "everyone else". "Everyone else" is equal in production, earnings, and services required. Government will give you what you need and you will government what it needs to provide equal services to all. "Spread it around" as their leader says.
They have no idea how to answer your question with a specific number. Whatever is necessary to achieve equality.
boxcar
10-19-2008, 12:26 AM
Their goal is equality. Two classes of people - Government (liberals) and "everyone else". "Everyone else" is equal in production, earnings, and services required. Government will give you what you need and you will government what it needs to provide equal services to all. "Spread it around" as their leader says.
They have no idea how to answer your question with a specific number. Whatever is necessary to achieve equality.
Hmm..."equality" you say? So that means a brain surgeon would get paid as much as a day laborer? Or should I rephrase that? A hamburger flipper uppper would get elevated to the pay grade of an astrophysicist? Awesome! We're all in for quite a thrill as we watch utopianism unfold right before our eyes. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.