Did you read the article you linked, Let me help youFilmFestGuy;1058891272]I don't believe anyone is paying less in taxes now than they were under Bush, Federal Taxes that is. I know of no bill the Republicans are blocking as the Democrats can pass anything they want in the House so show me that bill.
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
I wasn't the only one (obviously) - the vast majority of Americans paid less in 2009 than they did in 2008 or any other years recently. And that's gauges as a percentage of their income - not a reduction as a whole due to the recession.
So, if you didn't pay equal or less, then you either have a bad accountant, make a LOT of money (a lot more than the average American) or you're lying about your own taxes.
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
All taxes, not Federal Income taxes and that is what Bush cut. What happened in 2009 is Obama gave everyone a REBATE check on top of the Bush taxes. That rebate check cut tax liability but is gone noe. Bush lowered tax rates as did Reagan, Obama did no such thing.
Yep but like all liberals apparently it doesn't matter how. Suggest you go to BEA.gov and click on GDP to find the four components of GDP. You did note that the last qtr GDP was revised downward to the lowest in a year. Cash for Clunkers, First Time Home Credits, then the stimulus and wouldn't you expect economic growth? Stores offer sales to entice people to spend money but if all the people bought was the sale item the numbers would look good for a period of time but then once gone the revenue would drop again as would the profits.You are aware that GDP has grown now for three consecutive quarters, right? That's called a recovery.
Look at unemployment and discouraged worker data, 16 million, never in history has that happened and especially after spending trillions. There is no improvement when you take 1.2 million discouraged out of the labor force and reduce the base the percentage is going to drop but so has the labor force and the number employed.And while jobs were lost in 2009, they are improving in 2010. Yes stimulus is responsible for some it, but it wouldn't have happened without it (as I've already pointed out).
then you missed the employment number which is the link I posted. Click on employment, put in the dates you want and you will get the spread sheet I posted. Use bls.gov, not wikipedia. Labor force has dropped, employment numbers have dropped, unemployment numbers plus discouraged workers has increased.And I didn't lie. I got the numbers for non-farm jobs directly from here at the BLS website, and the numbers I used are also used here:
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, did you read why the Republicans were against that bill? Seems you only read the headlines and not the content of the article. Read the reasons for not supporting the bill and it has nothing to do with the GOP Support or lack of support for private business. The Chamber of Commerce is against the Obama healthcare initiative, cap and trade, and private business practices but that seems to have escaped you.And here's the bill that Republicans are filibustering in the Senate that would aid small business owners:
Despite, by the way, that it's supported by US Chamber of Commerce among other pro-business organizations.
McConnell claims its because Democrats are restricting the amendment period - but it's simple (considering several Republicans were in on the writing of the bill). They simply don't want to let Democrats pass a good bill for the people (I'm sure there are flaws, but every bill is flawed - every one that's ever been passed) for political expedience.
The worse we do, the better it is for Republicans. Republicans want the country to continue to fail so they can gain power. It's all they want.
But simply put, you have an agenda to make things worse than they are now.
You continue to miss the point, GM and Chrysler are owned by the U.S. Taxpayer and the profits they are making aren't enough to pay back the loans from the taxpayers except by paying them back with new loans. The govt. has no business bailing out private business. By the way I was against Bush bailing out the banks as well.I've used GPD numbers, job creation numbers from the BLS, etc. I have not once argued that things are hunky-dorey. They're not. There's still work to do. But GM, Chrylser, and Ford all reported profits. And yes, Ford didn't take the bailout - but how well would they have done if their suppliers had gone under because those suppliers also worked for GM and Chrysler? Ford didn't take money, but they benefited through indirect ways from the bailout. Do you think all the suppliers would have stayed afloat with 2/3 of their customers gone?
And what policies were those? Stop buying what you are being told and actually get the facts. Think before speaking. The financial crisis was due to the subprime loans that came out of the Community Reinvestment Act of Jimmy Carter, promoted by Bill Clinton and then defended by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in 2006 when Bush tried to regulate them more. It was the foreclosures due to those subprime loans that created this recession and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are right in the middle of itI don't like a lot of things that have gone on. I'm just sick of the hyperbole and the sudden love for the party whose policies drove the nation to its knees in the first place.
The Tea Party is against all spending and is against both parties in that area. They are however closer to the Republican Party today because of the massive debt Obama has created in 2 years and that doesn't include the cost of healthcare, cap and trade, and all the stimulous spending.Again, the Tea Party (and what bothers me about it, is they weren't complaining about spending until now - instead of complaining about it when Republicans were driving the deficit u pat extraordinary rates) is like an abused wife returning home to the abuser because because they're unhappy with the social worker.
I'm sorry, but Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul are NOT the answer to this nation's woes.
Democrats do not want to compromise, never have and never will. Reagan tried to compromise with liberals on immigration reform and cutting spending, kept his promise and the Democrats reneged. Read My Lips GHW Bush raised taxes with the promise that we would get 3 dollars in cuts for every dollar in tax increases, we got the tax increases but no spending cuts. The idea of compromise to a liberal is giving into a liberal on everything they want and the results are there for all to see. The problem is now we have a new group of liberals who said the previous group of liberals didn't spend the money right or enough of it.The answers lie in getting people together to discuss ideas, test some things out, restructure the entire nature of our system, both politically and economically. Rand Paul might have some ideas. Michelle Bachmann just wants to issue subpoenas. She's said as much.
It really is frustrating to have to explain to people like you the benefits of the private sector and even you keeping more of your money. Greed apparently is ok when it comes from the Federal Govt. Today we have a 3.8 trillion dollar budget and growing all because we have a radical leftwing President who seems to have brainwashed good people like you. His poll numbers are dropping for a reason and that reason is people are waking up to his agenda and his record.