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.
none of that is indicated by moderate increases in taxes, fox. 100% unsubstantiated policy positions.across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.
But what does it accomplish if increased tax revenues result in decreased economic activitiy and prosperity? It sounds great that yeah, raise all the taxes to balance the budget.
But if those tax increase result in lost jobs, more folks on unemployment, more folks on food stamps, more folks on welfare, more folks not paying into the system because they have little or no income, those tax increases would be pretty stupid wouldn't you say?
for businesses, as i had espoused to GA earlier, taxes invite investment as they promote the activity of businesses to shelter themselves through deductibility. how does your analysis fit with the clinton tax increase?
do you acknowledge that there needs to be more government revenue at all, in addition to major restructuring of the costs of government? a line is drawn for me on that basic recognition between folks who have a clue about what the dollar faces, and those who have fallen victim to the political budgeteering.
the myths you've laid out above are symptoms of this modern voter dystrophy. also indicated is an impression that the government has the will or wherewithal to affect debt reduction through constraining costs of government alone, or that there isn't commensurate impact on the wider economy from such adjustments alone.
taxes effect the whole economy. price increases aimed at accounting for taxes tend to be across the board, not offering preferential competitive advantage between domestic businesses. personally, i have never adjusted pricing for any products or services i've ever offered to account for tax. how real is that?Every businessman knows that just raising prices does not necessarily increase the bottom line and can actually hurt it if the tax increase results in his customers going elsewhere or not buying at all.
none of that is indicated by moderate increases in taxes, fox. 100% unsubstantiated policy positions.But what does it accomplish if increased tax revenues result in decreased economic activitiy and prosperity? It sounds great that yeah, raise all the taxes to balance the budget.
But if those tax increase result in lost jobs, more folks on unemployment, more folks on food stamps, more folks on welfare, more folks not paying into the system because they have little or no income, those tax increases would be pretty stupid wouldn't you say?
for businesses, as i had espoused to GA earlier, taxes invite investment as they promote the activity of businesses to shelter themselves through deductibility. how does your analysis fit with the clinton tax increase?
do you acknowledge that there needs to be more government revenue at all, in addition to major restructuring of the costs of government? a line is drawn for me on that basic recognition between folks who have a clue about what the dollar faces, and those who have fallen victim to the political budgeteering.
the myths you've laid out above are symptoms of this modern voter dystrophy. also indicated is an impression that the government has the will or wherewithal to affect debt reduction through constraining costs of government alone, or that there isn't commensurate impact on the wider economy from such adjustments alone.
taxes effect the whole economy. price increases aimed at accounting for taxes tend to be across the board, not offering preferential competitive advantage between domestic businesses. personally, i have never adjusted pricing for any products or services i've ever offered to account for tax. how real is that?Every businessman knows that just raising prices does not necessarily increase the bottom line and can actually hurt it if the tax increase results in his customers going elsewhere or not buying at all.
I asked some very specific questions and I believe all are pertinent given the economic history in past century alone. I did not lay out any myths or examples of any kind. You chose not to answer the questions asked but rather deflected from the questions with a series of red herrings and straw men. Once you answer my questions, then we can proceed with answers to your questions.
across the board, tax revenues need to go up for the solvency pf government. unlike our states, our federal solvency effects the dollar directly, and we cant play the games we have been the last 30 years. wouldn't raise taxes if we didn't need to reclaim the dough.
This may be the single most warped narrow minded thing I've read so far. If I were a democrat I'd be laughing my ass off at you. "Look not only am I spending inefficiently, I actually have this donkey (no pun intended) supporting it."
I am sad for the tax issue when I see both righties and lefties playing the governments game. Everyone is arguing about who should have their taxes raised and who should get cuts, but no one seems to want to hold the people that caused the problem accountable.
I disagree about the accountability. One of the reasons the Republicans were booted starting in 2006 was because the Bush tax cuts were skewed to keep the wealth at the top, thereby creating the beginning of class warfare, added to the fact that we were heavily invested in two major wars at the same time. Now the Republicans are all upset that Obama has increased the size of the deficit Bush created, and they will have their turn at holding him and the Democrats accountable if nothing has changed by 2012.
Ever get a job from a poor person on welfare? Shit, they don't even work themselves. I see a bunch of money being returned to the people in the form of ending stimulus too allowing businesses to fail that are being artificially propped up so we can find true bottom and finally seriously recover.For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.
The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.
Basically the bill proposes the following:
1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.
Would you vote for this? Why or why not?
So basically help the rich, help the rich, help the rich, don't actually solve any of the problems with Wall Street. Yup, typical Republican bill these days.
For those who say the Republicans are the party of 'no' and have no ideas, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced H.R. 5020 - Economic Freedom Act of 2010 - recently. It is still in committee and the Democratic majority probably will not allow it out of committee this year.
The bill has a number of supporters however and, should the Republicans achieve a majority in November, they will bring it to a vote on the House floor early in 2011.
Basically the bill proposes the following:
1) Eliminate the capital gains tax.
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax.
4) Provide immediate business expensing.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010.
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts).
7) Terminate the TARP program.
Would you vote for this? Why or why not?
none of that is indicated by moderate increases in taxes, fox. 100% unsubstantiated policy positions.
for businesses, as i had espoused to GA earlier, taxes invite investment as they promote the activity of businesses to shelter themselves through deductibility. how does your analysis fit with the clinton tax increase?
do you acknowledge that there needs to be more government revenue at all, in addition to major restructuring of the costs of government? a line is drawn for me on that basic recognition between folks who have a clue about what the dollar faces, and those who have fallen victim to the political budgeteering.
the myths you've laid out above are symptoms of this modern voter dystrophy. also indicated is an impression that the government has the will or wherewithal to affect debt reduction through constraining costs of government alone, or that there isn't commensurate impact on the wider economy from such adjustments alone.
taxes effect the whole economy. price increases aimed at accounting for taxes tend to be across the board, not offering preferential competitive advantage between domestic businesses. personally, i have never adjusted pricing for any products or services i've ever offered to account for tax. how real is that?
I asked some very specific questions and I believe all are pertinent given the economic history in past century alone. I did not lay out any myths or examples of any kind. You chose not to answer the questions asked but rather deflected from the questions with a series of red herrings and straw men. Once you answer my questions, then we can proceed with answers to your questions.
you asked, fox, if taxes have these negative effects, if they'd be a good idea. i refuted the basis of those questions because they dont fit with reality. that they are myths. can you refute this characterization, beyond merely denying it?
Where is the Economic Freedom? I see nothing that reduces the deficit, nothing to balance the budget, nothing on responsible spending.
Its just another irresponsible Republican tax cut
1) Eliminate the capital gains tax. Nope I'd make a differentiation between short tern and long term capital gains, though
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. - Maybe...how will you replace that lost revenue?
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax. - Nope
4) Provide immediate business expensing. - We already do that in many cases.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010. - And replace that lost revenue how?
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts). - Have to go over that line by line to answer
7) Terminate the TARP program. - Closing the gate after the cows are in corn
1) Eliminate the capital gains tax. Nope I'd make a differentiation between short tern and long term capital gains, though
2) Reduce the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. - Maybe...how will you replace that lost revenue?
3) Permanently eliminate the death tax. - Nope
4) Provide immediate business expensing. - We already do that in many cases.
5) Reduce the payroll tax by half for 2010. - And replace that lost revenue how?
6) Repeal the "stimulus" spending (except for unemployment benefits and the tax cuts). - Have to go over that line by line to answer
7) Terminate the TARP program. - Closing the gate after the cows are in corn
With all the chattering cons do about "Incentives not to work," why the FUCK would they, or anyone, want to eliminate the estate tax? Why would we want to tell the ne'er-do-well sons of rich bastards "Don't worry, you'll never have to work, your family fortune will be perpetual and permanent."
hear ye, hear ye! the bill also proposes:
8) Sale of all TARP stock/asset warrants within a year of enactment.
the bill also includes a provision to require sale of all tarp stock assets within a year of its action. the problem with this, of course, is that a government sell-off of GM positions, for example, may put the taxed at a loss on the same. it may degrade the stock as well, with sales being mandated, rather than driven by demand, and where the sales affect an increase in supply.
one thing about republican legislation is that it can be read in a jiffy. even in committee, a democratic bill would stretch round the block, only to grow by leaps thereafter.
this one is light in the pants, awaiting some grand 'ol earmark ballast, no doubt.
the bill
Democrats' bills are long because they cross all the t's and dot all the i's, cross-reference everything to avoid loopholes. Yet they're highly criticized for being thorough. Go figure.
Where is the Economic Freedom? I see nothing that reduces the deficit, nothing to balance the budget, nothing on responsible spending.
Its just another irresponsible Republican tax cut
When you put people to WORK--they actually start paying taxes--which reduces the deficit. Unemployed Americans really do not pay income taxes---
This bill is a job creator. But this congress and administration would never go for it. Why? Because they would LOSE control of YOUR money.
"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend"--Margaret Thatcher.
"Fool me once, shame on you.....fool me twice, shame on me"
How many times do you think we will fall for this "Cut taxes on the rich to create jobs" bullshit?
We bought the Republican line, we gave them the White House and Congress to show us how their economic theory would work.
The rich kept the money and got richer and sent the jobs overseas
none of that is indicated by moderate increases in taxes, fox. 100% unsubstantiated policy positions.
for businesses, as i had espoused to GA earlier, taxes invite investment as they promote the activity of businesses to shelter themselves through deductibility. how does your analysis fit with the clinton tax increase?
do you acknowledge that there needs to be more government revenue at all, in addition to major restructuring of the costs of government? a line is drawn for me on that basic recognition between folks who have a clue about what the dollar faces, and those who have fallen victim to the political budgeteering.
the myths you've laid out above are symptoms of this modern voter dystrophy. also indicated is an impression that the government has the will or wherewithal to affect debt reduction through constraining costs of government alone, or that there isn't commensurate impact on the wider economy from such adjustments alone.
taxes effect the whole economy. price increases aimed at accounting for taxes tend to be across the board, not offering preferential competitive advantage between domestic businesses. personally, i have never adjusted pricing for any products or services i've ever offered to account for tax. how real is that?
I asked some very specific questions and I believe all are pertinent given the economic history in past century alone. I did not lay out any myths or examples of any kind. You chose not to answer the questions asked but rather deflected from the questions with a series of red herrings and straw men. Once you answer my questions, then we can proceed with answers to your questions.
you asked, fox, if taxes have these negative effects, if they'd be a good idea. i refuted the basis of those questions because they dont fit with reality. that they are myths. can you refute this characterization, beyond merely denying it?
Facts. So inconvenient to the Left
Fannie Maes Alt-A Pain May Extend to BofA HousingWireFriday, August 8th, 2008, 5:44 pm
All hemming and hawing aside over a large quarterly loss at Fannie Mae (FNM: 1.26 +1.61%) posted Friday one that, it should be noted, was the result of aggressive reserving for future losses its pretty clear that the GSE now faces the proverbial piper over its foray into Alt-A mortgages in the past few years. Fannie said Friday that it would exit the Alt-A business altogether by the end of the year, as a result.
From the start of 2006 until the third quarter of 2007, Alt-A loans represented 20 percent or more of Fannie Maes mortgage acquisitions; the GSE purchased $25 billion or more each quarter in Alt-A mortgages until the market for low-doc, no-doc and other non-traditional loans began to dry up towards the back half of last year (and the GSE implemented several eligibility and pricing increases).
During the second quarter, Alt-A represented just below 5 percent of acquisition volume and barely more than $5 billion still plenty of dollars, to be sure, but nowhere near what was observed during 2006 and 2007.
But any changes purchase/underwriting criteria still clearly came far too late to prevent the GSE from taking a direct credit hit, now that the Alt-A mortgage class is the latest area of mortgages to go through a meltdown, and many borrowers are defaulting at a seemingly parabolic rate each month and each quarter.
For its part, Fannie had roughly $307 billion in Alt-A mortgages remaining on its books (UPB) at the end of the second quarter, or 11.5 percent of the GSEs entire mortgage book.
And there can be little doubt that Alt-A is the source of much of Fannies actual credit costs during the quarter, either Alt-A mortgages represented a stunning 49.6 percent of the companys $1.6 billion in credit costs booked in Q2.
Its not hard to see why, either: Fannie holds $8.6 billion in option ARM mortgages and another $92 billion in interest-only mortgages, which together comprise roughly one-third of the Alt-A book at the company. Sliced differently, $100 billion of the Alt-A mortgage book is in California and Florida alone, two states that have seen median home prices slide dramatically throughout the past year.
Thirty percent of REO acquisitions by Fannie during the first six months of 2008 were tied to foreclosures on Alt-A mortgages; Fannie held 54,173 REO properties in inventory at the end of the second quarter.
Your posted article simply verifies what I posted!! I never claimed that F&F were faultless, only that the cons continue to heap the blame for the entire financial crisis on THEM, which is so NOT TRUE.
You bought all that "Tinkle down" crap didn't you?
If you want true economic freedom then balance the freaking budget. No tax cuts without equivalent cuts in spending.
I agree with you. I am in favor of spending cuts. Start with TARP and stimulus, then stop all earmarks when we have a deficit, end useless government agencies and layoff the people staffing them. It is like I said, Congress can balance the budget.
given that no leader in recorded history cut taxes during time of war until baby bush, i have a better suggestion. end the 200 billion dollar drain on our economy and soldiers' lives that is iraq.
government agencies aren't useless and people who hate government should never run government.
and psssssst... we got paid back most of the TARP money already.
seems you guys don't have anything except the same old same old failed economic policies that created the problems to begin with.
When you have an entire nation, leveraged as America is, any attempt to maintain the status quo is pure idiocy. That's what Tarp and stimulus were meant to do.
If you make a mistake, and paid no penalty for it, you haven't learned anything. Those companies should have been allowed to failed. "Too big to fail" not true. It's as Bern said, get to a true and stable bottom and grow from there.
