Support for Congress is up

[red states rule]

a simple question:

do you understand the meaning of the word "marginal"? yes or no?

Whats wrong MM - having a hard time with such an easy question?

Do you unserstand MORE money is coming into the government with LOWER taxes?

The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes when rates were CUT

 

[maineman]

and if you want to revisit tax rates, why not go back to Ike?

92% top marginal tax rates under a republican president and a republican congress.

 

[maineman]

Whats wrong MM - having a hard time with such an easy question?

Do you unserstand MORE money is coming into the government with LOWER taxes?

The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes when rates were CUT

do you know what the meaning of the term "marginal increase" is?
if you did, you would not suggest that the effects of a marginal increase would be the same as increasing to 70%.

It seems to me that your level of understanding about tax policy in America could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.

 

[red states rule]

do you know what the meaning of the term "marginal increase" is?
if you did, you would not suggest that the effects of a marginal increase would be the same as increasing to 70%.

It seems to me that your level of understanding about tax policy in America could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a cup of coffee.

Back to the arrogrant and condencending replies

If you REALLY want to raise money MM - why not take the taxes back to the level they were before those horrible Reagan tax cuts?

 

[maineman]

Back to the arrogrant and condencending replies

If you REALLY want to raise money MM - why not take the taxes back to the level they were before those horrible Reagan tax cuts?

do you know what the term "marginal increase" means? yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

do you know what the term "marginal increase" means? yes or no?

http://www.invest-2win.com/Brackets.html


When you cut taxes - you increase revenues

It worked for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Pres Bush

Why raise taxes when revenues have been increasing for the last 5 years?

 

[maineman]

http://www.invest-2win.com/Brackets.html


When you cut taxes - you increase revenues

It worked for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Pres Bush

Why raise taxes when revenues have been increasing for the last 5 years?

when you marginally increase tax rates, you do not decrease revenue and you do not decrease investment activity.

why can't you carry on a conversation where you answer questions posed to you? YOu ask me quewstions and I answer them...wh can't you do the same?

 

[red states rule]

when you marginally increase tax rates, you do not decrease revenue and you do not decrease investment activity.

why can't you carry on a conversation where you answer questions posed to you? YOu ask me quewstions and I answer them...wh can't you do the same?

when you raise taxes you do stifle investment and economic growth

Tax cuts cause increased economic activity, business growth, higher employment, and more tax money coming in

tax cuts work everytime

Why are revenues to the government at record highs right now?

 

[maineman]

when you raise taxes you do stifle investment and economic growth

Tax cuts cause increased economic activity, business growth, higher employment, and more tax money coming in

tax cuts work everytime

Why are revenues to the government at record highs right now?

no...when you marginally increase taxes, you do not stifle investment whatsoever. What are the wealthy going to do with their money other than invest it in the economy? what is a better place for their money than that?

 

[red states rule]

no...when you marginally increase taxes, you do not stifle investment whatsoever. What are the wealthy going to do with their money other than invest it in the economy? what is a better place for their money than that?

I will tell you

In Nov 1990, Pres Bush and the dem Congress imposed the Federal Luxury tax. It crippled the MAIN yacht industry

Rich people stopped buying them

The builders, carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, and electricians lost their jobs

The tax did not bring in the expected revenue

When Republicans repealed the tax, and Clinton signed it - the "rich" started ordering yachts again

Libs seem to think the rich have a vault full of cash and will not mind forking it over to the government

Think again

 

[red states rule]

With San Fran Nan (the Self Appointed Sec of State) out in public, the Dems numbers will stay in the basement


Assad's useful idiot
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
By Farid Ghadry
April 13, 2007


There was a tinge of Hanoi Jane quality to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's exuberance in declaring during her visit with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad that the "road to peace" in the region apparently went through Damascus. Seemingly enjoying the media frenzy that ensued from leading the highest-level delegation of U.S. officials to Syria since the nominal cessation of relations between Washington and the Ba'athist regime, Mrs. Pelosi wandered the historic streets of Damascus ever ignorant of the regime minders closely in tow; as her smiling profile was plastered throughout all the major state-controlled media outlets where Bashar Assad's "success" was heralded by both local media and international Arab satellite stations. Whether for self-interested political reasons, or simple criminal inattentiveness to the pernicious impact of her visit, Mrs. Pelosi met with Mr. Assad, despite strenuous objections from U.S. government corners and pleas from a Syrian opposition still reeling from the latest round of mass arrests.
Mrs. Pelosi's misguided attempt at shuttle diplomacy did more than present a convenient contradiction in U.S. policy for Assad and Ba'athist propaganda to adroitly exploit; her presence further abetted efforts by the regime to demonstrate to a weary Syrian populace that Mr. Assad still maintained significant clout and leverage against the United States and the West. That is, for those Syrians hoping for a sign that the Western world was finally matching its rhetoric of pressuring and squeezing an increasingly belligerent Assad regime, Mrs. Pelosi's amateurish road show thoroughly dampened any confidence by the Syrian people that they could count on the West and the United States in particular, to stand in good-faith by their word.
This devaluation of trust by the people in the region will have serious negative repercussions for U.S. interests down the line -- already rampant rumors exist in the country that Mr. Assad is secretly supported by the United States, despite appearances that would indicate otherwise. Mrs. Pelosi's visit merely served to reinforce such perceptions and deepen the despair in a magnitude akin to a hostage receiving word that no one was coming to their rescue.
Admittedly, members of Mrs. Pelosi's congressional delegation, such as Rep. Tom Lantos, have a proven track record in taking the Assad regime to task for its well-documented intransigence, but this time around even Mr. Lantos' usual stern message of warning was not delivered to Bashar and his family-run machine of state terror. The regime was able to frame Mrs. Pelosi's visit in the most beneficial and helpful manner possible. By projecting the image of the West "needing" Mr. Assad, his hand in the region was strengthened regardless of the international momentum that had been steadily built up against him since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
In fact, the results of the last congressional delegation -- led by Sen. John Kerry -- which visited Assad last December should have been telling; then, as now, despite grand bombast on the importance of "dialogue," the regime merely scored a public-relations victory -- while there was no visible evidence that the Syrian regime was relaxing its repressive domestic and offensive foreign policies.
Indeed, as Mrs. Pelosi was wrapping up her tete-a-tete, the Ba'athist regime sought to add extra mileage to its PR coup de grace when it released a statement claiming it had played an important role as an interlocutor with Iran as the British hostages were released.
Simply put, if Damascus is indeed integral for the "road to peace," as Mrs. Pelosi claimed, then Mr. Assad had long made a U-turn. But her words were more than an embarrassment and potential setback for U.S. interests. As brave resistors to Ba'athist rule like Kamal Labwani and Michel Kilo still languish in solitary confinement at the hands of the cruel Political Security Directorate, such prattle has the very real consequence of costing lives. Words kill, and Mrs. Pelosi's ill-timing undercuts substantive efforts by the opposition within and outside Syria to develop a meaningful democratic alternative to a hateful regime that in the end neither benefits U.S. interests nor those of the Syrian people.
It is a matter of knowing who the enemy is and what they stand for; and as Mrs. Pelosi's colleagues in Congress announced their intention to ban the term "global war on terror," it may come as little surprise that such myopic disdain for this regime's serious ill will against stability and democracy in the region seems to dominate certain policy quarters within the U.S. government.
Our suggestion to U.S. officials and policy makers of all political persuasion is to heed the advice of Natan Sharansky, survivor of the Soviet Union's gulag -- who suggested that U.S. policy-makers link any positive rapprochement with the Soviet Union with changes in the latter's domestic policy, especially pertaining to mistreatment of the refuseniks. That policy eventually came to successful fruition due to steadfastness showed by U.S. leadership; and it is a policy that can equally prove fruitful today in places like Syria. Linking a demand for justice for the Syrian people with normalized relations can go a long ways in solving the numerous problems that Assad's regime is causing for U.S. security interests. Vacuous open-ended dialogue is simply a one-way street, going the wrong way.

Farid Ghadry is president of the Reform Party of Syria.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070412-085637-1395r.htm

 

[maineman]

I will tell you

In Nov 1990, Pres Bush and the dem Congress imposed the Federal Luxury tax. It crippled the MAIN yacht industry

Rich people stopped buying them

The builders, carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, and electricians lost their jobs

The tax did not bring in the expected revenue

When Republicans repealed the tax, and Clinton signed it - the "rich" started ordering yachts again

Libs seem to think the rich have a vault full of cash and will not mind forking it over to the government

Think again

why do you bring up a luxury tax when the topic of discussion is the marginal increase in income tax? Is it possible for you to stay on topic? You have said that a marginal increase in the top end bracket for federal income tax would stifle investment. I asked you where else people would put their money if not into the economy? Do you really think that raising the marginal tax rate for the uber-wealthy by 3% will cause them all to rush down to their brokers, pull all of their money out of the stock market, take it home and stick it in their mattress? yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

why do you bring up a luxury tax when the topic of discussion is the marginal increase in income tax? Is it possible for you to stay on topic? You have said that a marginal increase in the top end bracket for federal income tax would stifle investment. I asked you where else people would put their money if not into the economy? Do you really think that raising the marginal tax rate for the uber-wealthy by 3% will cause them all to rush down to their brokers, pull all of their money out of the stock market, take it home and stick it in their mattress? yes or no?

Look dead head - it is the same with ANY tax increase

If it costs more to buy things, do business, and engage in any activity - there will be less of the activity

 

[maineman]

Look dead head - it is the same with ANY tax increase

If it costs more to buy things, do business, and engage in any activity - there will be less of the activity

how does a tax on income make THINGS more expensive? Just tell me what the wealthy will do with their money if we raise the marginal income tax rate by 3%? Will they take it out of the economy and put it in a mattress? yes or no?

 

[maineman]

and what do you think that government will do with that marginal 3% of the rish folk's income? here's a hint: they will pump it back into the economy..... where it will help the working capital of wealthy americans make them more money.

 

[red states rule]

how does a tax on income make THINGS more expensive? Just tell me what the wealthy will do with their money if we raise the marginal income tax rate by 3%? Will they take it out of the economy and put it in a mattress? yes or no?

It makes things more expensive due to the cost of doing business is made more espensive

People have less money to spend thus they buy less

Thus, less manufacturing of goods

The wealthy will find other places to put their money where they will not be taxed as much

Liberalism is based on the flaw everyone is for doing what is best for the "common good"

 

[red states rule]

and what do you think that government will do with that marginal 3% of the rish folk's income? here's a hint: they will pump it back into the economy..... where it will help the working capital of wealthy americans make them more money.

So government handouts is the answer?

Libs do believe government can spend and invest money more effiecently then the people who actually earn the money

 

[Dirt McGirt]

It makes things more expensive due to the cost of doing business is made more espensive

People have less money to spend thus they buy less

Thus, less manufacturing of goods

The wealthy will find other places to put their money where they will not be taxed as much

Liberalism is based on the flaw everyone is for doing what is best for the "common good"

So why don't we just set the tax rate at 0% and maximize all revenue?

 

[red states rule]

So why don't we just set the tax rate at 0% and maximize all revenue?

For the same reason libs do not want to make the minimum wage $25/hr

 

[Dirt McGirt]

For the same reason libs do not want to make the minimum wage $25/hr

There's an optimal rate at which to set taxes but it depends on the state of the economy. Generally speaking, extremist libtards always want to set taxes higher than the optimal window and far right wing retards always want to set taxes lower than the optimal window. Your approach to taxes mirrors the latter.

The bottom line is that budget deficits do just as much harm to the economy as unnecessary social programs. But it really doesn't matter what you set the tax rate at when there's corruption and inefficiency going on within the government.