Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...
...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...
They're not unsustainable.
...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...
They're not unsustainable.
...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.
...get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money. Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people...
The point of the recent succubus was to payola to prop up state bureaucrat unions....Period.The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending...
They're not unsustainable.
...or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
The point of the recent stimulus was substituting public spending for the private spending which isn't happening.
Unfunded liabilities is unsustainable.We have to change entitlement programs.
Medicare costs is going to reach 78 trillion - unsustainable
Unfunded liabilities is going to reach 113 trillion, unsustainable.
High taxes will not fix this. Cutting must be done in order to help the poor.
We have government programs who help the rich,this kind of stuff has to stop.
...get rid of the regulations and laws that are costing us all to much money. Companies are paying out so much money to meet the regulations that they don't have the money to hire people...
Agreed. In fact, I've heard right-wingers say they'd accept higher tax rates along with reduced regulation.
...Returning taxes back to the levels under Clinton and the phasing out of the stimulus package (it's done what it could) IMO, will solve this problem.
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the fiscal 2011 spending deal that Congress will vote on Thursday concludes that it would cut spending this year by less than one-one hundredth of what both Republicans or Democrats have claimed.
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
Nobody is hiring fucking hiring the poor, get that through your head, the companies have made good money the last few years and have offshored it, fuck that, if they're not going to hire they shouldn't get jack shit, fuck that trickle bullshit, it has never worked.
...Jeffrey Sachs: De-Mystifying the Budget Debate
From the article: "Cutting the spending sharply, as proposed by Ryan for example, would mean a brutal squeeze on America's poor (who are already suffering from high unemployment..."
We all want to help the poor and the question is do we help them by unsustainable increases of taxing and spending, or do we let people keep money to hire the poor. It's a choice between a few months of welfare and years of job opportunities.
No. You solve everyone's problem by taxing the rich at the rates that were present during Clinton's administration. That takes care of the poor, relieves the burden on the middle class, and provides the money the feds need to balance the budget, and begin paying off the debt. If you don't restore the tax rates for the wealthy, you're dooming this country financially. There is NO WAY to pay off the debt with the tax rates in the Ryan plan.
August 5, 1996
"Some columnists claim that tax receipts are now a bigger share of the economy than ever before, presumably the result of tax increases enacted in 1993. As a result, they say, federal taxes and especially federal income taxes should be cut. But the claim is false.
The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.
Because taxes paid by wealthy taxpayers increased significantly, average tax burdens climbed. But this tells nothing about the taxes paid by the typical taxpayer. Consider four middle-class families with taxable incomes of $30,000 and one wealthy family with a taxable income of $500,000. The four hypothetical middle-income families in the middle of the income spectrum each paid $6,000 — or 20 percent of income — in federal taxes both before and after the 1993 tax code changes. The wealthy family paid $140,000 — or 28 percent of income — before the tax code changes, and $160,000 — or 32 percent of income — after the changes. The average tax increase paid by all five families was $4,000. But all of this increase was borne by the one wealthy family.
As this example illustrates, using the increase in average tax payments produces a misleading picture of what has happened to the typical family tax burden. In this example, the typical family — the family that falls in the middle of the income distribution, with half of families earning more income and half earning less — pays no more in federal income taxes before the 1993 tax code changes than after."