- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Do you want to return to the Industrial Revolution style of regulation and oversight?
How about something in between?
Do you want to return to the Industrial Revolution style of regulation and oversight?
The proposal seems to be good politics for Obama. Instead of begining with a reasonable comprimise as he did with the debt-ceiling fiasco, this proposal is farther left. If this process is correctly viewed as a negotiation, it only makes sense to propose a partisan plan, and then walk back to the middle. Looks like it took the centerist administration 3 years to figure out a rational way to deal with a center-right congress. Say what you want of the plan, but it is something the Dems can get behind.
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate.
In 1988, finance became the chosen sector of the U.S. economy. Product innovation, the ultimate paper entrepreneural opportunity, followed an economic policy that aimed to achieve growth by wealth creation. By 2007, the results in terms of wealth and profits were staggering. Financial services became Wall Street's new profits machine.
They identify as Dem over GOP by about 20%, but if you look at their views on individual issues they lean GOP to libertarian on fiscal and government issues, but they lean left on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If they're Democrats, they're old-style Southern Democrats.BTW, polls show most of the youngsters are right leaning these days.That's not true. Young people, especially college kids are overwhelmingly liberal.
Hasn't that money that is invested been taxes already? How many times should income be taxed?
I'll give you two that I'm familiar with:
1. Safety harnesses are now required by any roofer working more than 6' above the ground. Any one that has ever worn a safety harness will tell you that they create more of a safety hazard than by not having one. Besides, every contractor I see would hit the ground before the harness caught because they leave a lot of slack in them so they can get their work done. If it was done correctly, harnesses would be required on roofs beyond a certain roof slope such as greater than 8:12.
2. The EPA now requires that all contractors renovating or repairing a house built before 1978 to be lead paint certified. It doesn't matter if they've tested the paint and found that it does not contain lead. They still have to send their men to an 8 hour course that costs $300 a person. Another way to increase the cost of doing business.
I should have known better than to post a serious reply to a partisan hack that has no knowledge of how business works.
You're dismissed.
since you've never worn a safety harness, I wouldn't expect a serious answer from you. It's very hard to walk around with one on.
My point was that the regulations are useless. No roofing contractor wears a safety harness that would actually prevent him from being injured, they only wear it so that the OSHA inspector won't fine them. What good does that do.
19 Different Polls Show That Americans Support Tax Increases To Cut Deficit
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/u...-plan-is-well-received.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/250094/new-york-times-cbs-poll-results.pdf
According to the poll, large majorities support increased spending to create jobs
Large majority supports increasing taxes on those making more than 250K
The majority of people are also stupid and are basing their opinions off of little or no actual facts.
Well, then it's a good thing we have politicians to tell us what to do ain't it?The majority of people are also stupid and are basing their opinions off of little or no actual facts.
That argument sounds very self-referential
Well, then it's a good thing we have politicians to tell us what to do ain't it?
Most people are of average intelligence.
Except people on the internet. The typical internet user has an IQ of 147 and a 9 inch penis.
source: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/numbers.png
What if we extended tax cuts to businesses who actually create jobs? Not to businesses who MIGHT create a job, but only to the one who actually do so?
Would that pass ideological muster?
I am not really asking if it would work so much as to whether or not it would be ideologically acceptable.The problem is not so much the taxes or the cuts as it is the fact that business is not growing because people are not spending. Companies are not going to take risks like expansion in a market that can't make up it's mind on which direction it is going. No amount of molesting the tax code is going to fix that problem. None of this was a problem until it cost people $4 a gallon to put gas in their cars.
That was Paul Ryan's math as well.:roll:Obama's math:
Pretending that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on in perpetuity and then counting $1.1 trillion in savings by "ending" them.
So, the $3 trillion is really comprised of ~$1.5 trillion in new taxes, ~$1.1 trillion in mythical war spending savings, and then a measely ~$400 billion in true spending cuts. That's his "balanced approach".
Why do you have a problem with Obama asking the wealthiest Americans to pay the same exact tax rate that most middle class people pay?
As of yet, we have not actually seen him ask that. He's made vague remarks with nothing to show for them. When he actually comes up with a plan, then maybe someone can debate it. Until then, it's the same old, same old out of him. Nothing.
the problem with Obumble's idiocy is as follows
1) what is the average middle class tax rate. 47% of america has an effective tax rate of ZERO. that group encompasses a lot of the middle class.
2) is he going to impose a flat rate on millionaires no matter if their income is
a) mainly salary (earned income)
b) long term capital gains
c) Dividends (which are double taxed)
you can have three people each making 5 million a year having very different effective tax rates
I am not really asking if it would work so much as to whether or not it would be ideologically acceptable.
Ideology is what stands in the way of practicality on a wide variety of issues in and out of politics. As abstract and ephemeral as ideology is, it does have real world effects and implications.
IOW, the government can't create jobs, so let's soak tax payers for as much as we can.
The reason the middle class can pay taxes is because the rich allow them an opportunity to.
When Eisenhower was president, the highest tax rate was 90%, and unemployment was low. No, I am not suggesting that we tax at 90% again. I just brought up this fact to show the lie that is being passed around that it is tax cuts that create jobs. Jobs are created when people buy stuff, and when the middle class is squeezed more than the rich, they buy less, and fewer jobs are created as a result. It's all about supply and demand. What can kill demand, and therefore jobs? Greed.
yet the effective top rate wasn't much different due to all the breaks, loopholes etc and that top rate applied to far less people and was justified in paying off a massive war
we also were the only industrial power left standing after WWII
IS there anyone out there who suggests TAX HIKES create jobs? that is the main issue