Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
According to whom?
Again, can you cite an example of the CBO being correct in any of their projections?
According to me. Since consumer spending represents over two-thirds of the economy, I think it is more important than protecting the top 1%'s wealth.
Ok. It's not fiscally viable, but you are free to have your opinion.
I posted an interesting article from the Washington Post that referenced CBO predictions. Why do I need to defend the CBO record?
Because they have never been right and you are trying to use their predictions as a justification.
one more time......
what on earth are you talking about? are you asserting that the president doesn't pay taxes?
or would you just prefer to stay on the same silliness?
According to me. Since consumer spending represents over two-thirds of the economy, I think it is more important than protecting the top 1%'s wealth.
Ok. It's not fiscally viable, but you are free to have your opinion.
I posted an interesting article from the Washington Post that referenced CBO predictions. Why do I need to defend the CBO record?
Because they have never been right and you are trying to use their predictions as a justification.
Allow me to clarify a few things. I don't think we should raise taxes until the economy improves. After it improves, then we can think about raising taxes. Additionally, after the economy improves, I think we should reduce federal expenditures and balance our budget. Whether we like it or not, the size of the federal government has increased over the past 10 years and increased tax revenue will need to support it.
The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.
Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and youthe Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:
"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????
Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.
Why would a company do that?
Employee salaries aren't taxed. Profits are taxed.
And what percent of any company's employees are in the top 2 brackets? My employer would have zero in those brackets.
The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.
Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you
"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."
If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????
Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.
Companies make money off of employees. If they can arbitrarily lay them off out of spite, they were not cost effective anyway. If you can't make 100% profit off of what your employess produce, you will not be in business for long.
Also, the cost of employees salaries are a business expense and not taxed. What is taxed is Profit. Let the CEOs take smaller bonuses...if they don't like it let them go to Europe or Asia where CEOs make less money
Fuck the rich.
That seems to sum up the current economic policy. At least nobody is pretending otherwise anymore.
You're not rich. What do you care?
I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week.Well, I think people have had enough. For decades we've been called every name in the book when we disagreed. Now.. here we are. The folks McCarthy warned us about are in power and are implementing their master plan... 3 pillars.... Energy, Health Care & Education.
Notice how they've got us all carved up into neat "classes" too. It's a dehumanizing tactic. Don't talk about the entrepreneur who took $100K out of his SEP-IRA to make payroll, talk about the "upper class" or the "rich."
Don't listen to the people that know how to make money, exploit the jealousy and call them greedy.
President Obama made $400,000 last year that he didn't need. Why didn't he just give it all back to the government? Why has Paul Krugman not led by example and contributed directly to paying off the national debt?
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
In fact, why hasn't anyone here who advocates higher mandatory taxes done the same?
The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.
Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you
"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."
If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????
Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.
Companies make money off of employees. If they can arbitrarily lay them off out of spite, they were not cost effective anyway. If you can't make 100% profit off of what your employess produce, you will not be in business for long.
Also, the cost of employees salaries are a business expense and not taxed. What is taxed is Profit. Let the CEOs take smaller bonuses...if they don't like it let them go to Europe or Asia where CEOs make less money
Ugghh........rightwinger, I'd say you disappoint me, but you didn't, I expected it. You're now the second liberal to make the argument that the company profits will be taxed, not it's employee salaries, thus no jobs will be lost.
For a second time liberals: Employees are hired and paid by a company turning larger profits. How do you think "business" expenses are paid? The private sector is NOT GOVERNMENT. It cannot just run off debt and keep going farther in debt. Business needs profit to pay and expand workforces.
If you jack up taxes on a business, then that business must still pay it's expenses somehow. Layoffs maybe. Make the remaining workers "do more with less". Think the private sector has never done that before? Think again. Think CEO's will just cut their own salary in half? Think again. NO person would do that, CEO or janitor.
See, when government goes into debt, they just pay workers anyway, expand, print money, and go farther into debt.
You libs gotta realize the private sector isn't the government. They can't operate off debt and more debt and more debt. If you TAKE money from them, they must downsize somehow to offset the cost.
Eventually, you always run out of other peoples money.
Companies make money off of employees. If they can arbitrarily lay them off out of spite, they were not cost effective anyway. If you can't make 100% profit off of what your employess produce, you will not be in business for long.
Also, the cost of employees salaries are a business expense and not taxed. What is taxed is Profit. Let the CEOs take smaller bonuses...if they don't like it let them go to Europe or Asia where CEOs make less money
Ugghh........rightwinger, I'd say you disappoint me, but you didn't, I expected it. You're now the second liberal to make the argument that the company profits will be taxed, not it's employee salaries, thus no jobs will be lost.
For a second time liberals: Employees are hired and paid by a company turning larger profits. How do you think "business" expenses are paid? The private sector is NOT GOVERNMENT. It cannot just run off debt and keep going farther in debt. Business needs profit to pay and expand workforces.
If you jack up taxes on a business, then that business must still pay it's expenses somehow. Layoffs maybe. Make the remaining workers "do more with less". Think the private sector has never done that before? Think again. Think CEO's will just cut their own salary in half? Think again. NO person would do that, CEO or janitor.
See, when government goes into debt, they just pay workers anyway, expand, print money, and go farther into debt.
You libs gotta realize the private sector isn't the government. They can't operate off debt and more debt and more debt. If you TAKE money from them, they must downsize somehow to offset the cost.
Eventually, you always run out of other peoples money.
taxes will expire on INDIVIDUALS not on businesses. If u own a small business, there are ways around paying taxes, even on the profit....you can hire another employee, you can pay yourself as an employee instead of just taking the lump sum profit of your business and reporting it as income, you can reinvest in your own business to grow it, you can buy needed equipment etc etc etc....ALL of which is tax deductible for your business....
But let's say you do all of that, and you still take all of the business's profit for your own individual use and not the business's each year....and let's say you end up having $400,000 as your combined yearly income, if the individual income tax break expires this means you will have to pay+/- 4% more tax than now on $150k, ($400k minus the $250k which is where the tax hike is suppose to begin), and 4% more on this $150k is just $6,000 more than what you pay now with the bush tax break staying in tact.
in the BIG picture, that $6k more is doodley squat.
The left cares more about people as identity groups than as individuals. Further, to use the old adage, the right wants to teach people to fish. The left wants to give people a government-funded fish every day, so they'll be dependent, and regulate against individuals fishing for themselves.You do know that countless studies have shown an individual who identifies himself as a Conservative and/or Republican is far more likely to give to charity and to give more net $$ to charity than those identifiying as Liberal/Democrat.
Ironic, isn't it? The side that "cares about people" is far less charitable than the evil, racist hate mongering right wingers????
Creating larger and more numerous failed government programs does not help many people. Providing a massively wealthy nation does, as the 'poor' of America are well off compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to improve, which is why the right is so much more charitable than the left.
The left likes to say they want to help people, and they love to pass laws on how the government can try to force that help. The right, on the other hand, tends to be far more charitable, and would prefer to provide those people with a chance at a job.
And thats the choice between the right and left ideology. Would a poor person rather recieve an entry-level job, or a government handout check? Thats the difference right there. The right can promise a CHANCE at an opportunity to be great. The left can guarantee a promise, but only a promise of mediocrity or worse through government nanny state handouts.
Companies make money off of employees. If they can arbitrarily lay them off out of spite, they were not cost effective anyway. If you can't make 100% profit off of what your employess produce, you will not be in business for long.
Also, the cost of employees salaries are a business expense and not taxed. What is taxed is Profit. Let the CEOs take smaller bonuses...if they don't like it let them go to Europe or Asia where CEOs make less money
Ugghh........rightwinger, I'd say you disappoint me, but you didn't, I expected it. You're now the second liberal to make the argument that the company profits will be taxed, not it's employee salaries, thus no jobs will be lost.
For a second time liberals: Employees are hired and paid by a company turning larger profits. How do you think "business" expenses are paid? The private sector is NOT GOVERNMENT. It cannot just run off debt and keep going farther in debt. Business needs profit to pay and expand workforces.
If you jack up taxes on a business, then that business must still pay it's expenses somehow. Layoffs maybe. Make the remaining workers "do more with less". Think the private sector has never done that before? Think again. Think CEO's will just cut their own salary in half? Think again. NO person would do that, CEO or janitor.
See, when government goes into debt, they just pay workers anyway, expand, print money, and go farther into debt.
You libs gotta realize the private sector isn't the government. They can't operate off debt and more debt and more debt. If you TAKE money from them, they must downsize somehow to offset the cost.
Eventually, you always run out of other peoples money.
taxes will expire on INDIVIDUALS not on businesses. If u own a small business, there are ways around paying taxes, even on the profit....you can hire another employee, you can pay yourself as an employee instead of just taking the lump sum profit of your business and reporting it as income, you can reinvest in your own business to grow it, you can buy needed equipment etc etc etc....ALL of which is tax deductible for your business....
But let's say you do all of that, and you still take all of the business's profit for your own individual use and not the business's each year....and let's say you end up having $400,000 as your combined yearly income, if the individual income tax break expires this means you will have to pay+/- 4% more tax than now on $150k, ($400k minus the $250k which is where the tax hike is suppose to begin), and 4% more on this $150k is just $6,000 more than what you pay now with the bush tax break staying in tact.
in the BIG picture, that $6k more is doodley squat.
The left cares more about people as identity groups than as individuals. Further, to use the old adage, the right wants to teach people to fish. The left wants to give people a government-funded fish every day, so they'll be dependent, and regulate against individuals fishing for themselves.You do know that countless studies have shown an individual who identifies himself as a Conservative and/or Republican is far more likely to give to charity and to give more net $$ to charity than those identifiying as Liberal/Democrat.
Ironic, isn't it? The side that "cares about people" is far less charitable than the evil, racist hate mongering right wingers????
Creating larger and more numerous failed government programs does not help many people. Providing a massively wealthy nation does, as the 'poor' of America are well off compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to improve, which is why the right is so much more charitable than the left.
The left likes to say they want to help people, and they love to pass laws on how the government can try to force that help. The right, on the other hand, tends to be far more charitable, and would prefer to provide those people with a chance at a job.
And thats the choice between the right and left ideology. Would a poor person rather recieve an entry-level job, or a government handout check? Thats the difference right there. The right can promise a CHANCE at an opportunity to be great. The left can guarantee a promise, but only a promise of mediocrity or worse through government nanny state handouts.
And when the guy comes back with the fish he caught, it's "redistributed".The left cares more about people as identity groups than as individuals. Further, to use the old adage, the right wants to teach people to fish. The left wants to give people a government-funded fish every day, so they'll be dependent, and regulate against individuals fishing for themselves.You do know that countless studies have shown an individual who identifies himself as a Conservative and/or Republican is far more likely to give to charity and to give more net $$ to charity than those identifiying as Liberal/Democrat.
Ironic, isn't it? The side that "cares about people" is far less charitable than the evil, racist hate mongering right wingers????
Creating larger and more numerous failed government programs does not help many people. Providing a massively wealthy nation does, as the 'poor' of America are well off compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to improve, which is why the right is so much more charitable than the left.
The left likes to say they want to help people, and they love to pass laws on how the government can try to force that help. The right, on the other hand, tends to be far more charitable, and would prefer to provide those people with a chance at a job.
And thats the choice between the right and left ideology. Would a poor person rather recieve an entry-level job, or a government handout check? Thats the difference right there. The right can promise a CHANCE at an opportunity to be great. The left can guarantee a promise, but only a promise of mediocrity or worse through government nanny state handouts.
Thats so true. The right wants to fish. The left wants to be given fish.
And the rich? Well, the rich are innovative and looking for ways to go discover new lakes.
The lefties, of course, will never understand the above analogy. Their brains just don't operate that way. They would see some people fishing, others waiting for fish to be given to them, and then call the guys going out looking for new lakes "greedy" and demand they return to give more fish to the needy.
Ugghh........rightwinger, I'd say you disappoint me, but you didn't, I expected it. You're now the second liberal to make the argument that the company profits will be taxed, not it's employee salaries, thus no jobs will be lost.
For a second time liberals: Employees are hired and paid by a company turning larger profits. How do you think "business" expenses are paid? The private sector is NOT GOVERNMENT. It cannot just run off debt and keep going farther in debt. Business needs profit to pay and expand workforces.
If you jack up taxes on a business, then that business must still pay it's expenses somehow. Layoffs maybe. Make the remaining workers "do more with less". Think the private sector has never done that before? Think again. Think CEO's will just cut their own salary in half? Think again. NO person would do that, CEO or janitor.
See, when government goes into debt, they just pay workers anyway, expand, print money, and go farther into debt.
You libs gotta realize the private sector isn't the government. They can't operate off debt and more debt and more debt. If you TAKE money from them, they must downsize somehow to offset the cost.
Eventually, you always run out of other peoples money.
taxes will expire on INDIVIDUALS not on businesses. If u own a small business, there are ways around paying taxes, even on the profit....you can hire another employee, you can pay yourself as an employee instead of just taking the lump sum profit of your business and reporting it as income, you can reinvest in your own business to grow it, you can buy needed equipment etc etc etc....ALL of which is tax deductible for your business....
But let's say you do all of that, and you still take all of the business's profit for your own individual use and not the business's each year....and let's say you end up having $400,000 as your combined yearly income, if the individual income tax break expires this means you will have to pay+/- 4% more tax than now on $150k, ($400k minus the $250k which is where the tax hike is suppose to begin), and 4% more on this $150k is just $6,000 more than what you pay now with the bush tax break staying in tact.
in the BIG picture, that $6k more is doodley squat.
And secondly, you say taxes are only gonna be raised on individuals, not business. Well, I'd disagree, but I'll play along for sake of debate.
Lets say a 10 person board of ceos has a business. And all their individual taxes went up this year. They all earn less. So when it comes time to adjust salaries, they'll just up their own salary so they can maintain their lifestyle.
See, there is a personal status quo for each of us. And if a wealthy person takes a tax hike, but can give themselves a raise through the business they run or work as CEO for, they'll do it. No one wants to lower their own standard of living. I don't expect anyone to. If I were a CEO, I'd also want a big bonus to guarantee I could provide my family with the lifestyle they are used to for many many years. Wouldn't you do the same? No one wants their lifestyle to go down.
The problem is, too many people in this country who arent happy with their lifestyle would rather the gov't take other people's stuff away to redistribute it rather than suck it up, work their asses off, and slowly improve their own life independent of the government.
No major corporation will lay anyone off because the tax cuts expire. They'll cut people because the CEO ran the company into the toilet and now wants his bonus.
Look @ the 50's; tax rates for the wealthiest Americans was ludicrous and makes today's rates seem low.
And that same class has only gotten richer and the income gap bigger.
Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
No major corporation will lay anyone off because the tax cuts expire. They'll cut people because the CEO ran the company into the toilet and now wants his bonus.
Look @ the 50's; tax rates for the wealthiest Americans was ludicrous and makes today's rates seem low.
And that same class has only gotten richer and the income gap bigger.
Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
You don't raise taxes on anyone--during an economic downturn. Business is already slow enough--corporations--even wealthy ones--are not making the gross sales or profit that they did in good economic times. They are struggleing too.
The scenario the opt gave you is exact. If your rich employer gets a tax hike because dems. let the Bush tax cuts expire--there is almost a 100% guarantee--they will be looking to cut business expenses--and where they always cut first--is PAYROLL.
You voted for it--you got it!--
But nobody is raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. When milk expires and goes bad, someone did not come to poison the milk. All by itself it expired and went bad. Just like the Bush tax cuts BAD
But nobody is raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. When milk expires and goes bad, someone did not come to poison the milk. All by itself it expired and went bad. Just like the Bush tax cuts BAD
So, in summary:
Taxes are going up, but nobody's raising taxes. Bush sucks!
That pretty much cover it?
Still can't wrap my head around the "taxes are going up, bot nobody's raising them" thing.But nobody is raising taxes. The Bush tax cuts are expiring. When milk expires and goes bad, someone did not come to poison the milk. All by itself it expired and went bad. Just like the Bush tax cuts BAD
So, in summary:
Taxes are going up, but nobody's raising taxes. Bush sucks!
That pretty much cover it?
Close, but no... I would not blame it all on Bush, Regan screwed things up just as bad.
