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.
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.
And thanks to cut and spend policies...government has grown and the national debt is climbing. The dollar is at a low. Homes are being forfeited at record levels and the gap between the middle class and the rich are growing. I could care less if the budget deficit is down 50%, there's no excuse for fiscal irresponsibility or 6 consecutive years of budget deficits in any Presidency.Thanks to the current tax cuts........
The deficit is down more then 50%
Revenues are at record highs - and climbing
Unemployment is 4.3%
Wages are up
ven with high oil prices and a war the US economy is growing and doing well
And thanks to cut and spend policies...government has grown and the national debt is climbing. The dollar is at a low. Homes are being forfeited at record levels and the gap between the middle class and the rich are growing. I could care less if the budget deficit is down 50%, there's no excuse for fiscal irresponsibility or 6 consecutive years of budget deficits in any Presidency.
A shrinking budget deficit has nothing to do with tax cuts. One can have a budget surplus and still have tax cuts. Duh.This may come as a shock to you, but the defict is shriking and revenues continue to climb - due to tax CUTS
A shrinking budget deficit has nothing to do with tax cuts. One can have a budget surplus and still have tax cuts. Duh.
Revenues are only reflective of corporate profits. The blue collar wage earners aren't seeing any of those gains.
I don't deny corporations are enjoying record profits. But I am questioning who's benefiting from them. The rich are getting the majority of those benefits. And what have you been arguing the whole time? Let's cut taxes on the rich. Ridiculous. And what happens when the poor and middle class can't afford to buy any thing? You'd rather we had an economic model similar to Mexico's.So the tax cuts which spurred economic growth, the rising stock market, leaving more money in peoples pockets to spend, the rising retail sales numbers, and working capital for businesses to exand and hire; have nothing to do with the RECORD revenues flowing into the US Treasury?
I don't deny corporations are enjoying record profits. But I am questioning who's benefiting from them. The rich are getting the majority of those benefits. And what have you been arguing the whole time? Let's cut taxes on the rich. Ridiculous. And what happens when the poor and middle class can't afford to buy any thing? You'd rather we had an economic model similar to Mexico's.
In a capitalist economy its the ones who can play the game the best who reap the reards. If you tax the rich to the point to where they take thier capital elsewhere it is "elsewhere" that will benefit. They didnt get rich by being stupid.
How does taxing the successful do anything to help the less succesful?
How does taxing the successful do anything to help the less succesful?
where exactly is this "elsewhere" of which you speak? Do you think that the average American millionaire will pull all his money out of the stockmarket and stick it in his mattress if confronted with a marginal 3% increase in the top bracket tax rate?
No, however they may choose to continue to outsource as a method to offsest the income lost to higher taxation. And again--how does this 3% marginal increase help the less ambitious and less successful?
Because the rich need the poor and middle class to consume their products just as much as the poor and middle class need the rich to subsidize their incomes and pay for government services.How does taxing the successful do anything to help the less succesful?
by helping to build better schools for the children of the less successful.... by reducing the deficit which the children of the less successful will inherit...
by rebuilding infrastructure that can support more economic development and expansion.... I could keep going, but you get the picture - I hope.
oh ya--socialism. I'd recognize it anywhere. No thanks--I've seen it in action.
I have never suggested government ownership of the means of production. You guys use the word socialism to mean anything left of center.
and guess what.... I could give a fuck if you want it or not...the democrats in congress and the democrat that will be in the white house in '08 will shove it down your throat (or up your ass) whether you like it or not.
and I will laugh my ass off
It's not about what I want and when he government takes from the "rich" and redistributes the rewards of thier success to the poor you have a socialist mechanism at work.
The remainder of your post is hyper-partisan ranting which does nothing to solve problems or mend fences.
I don't deny corporations are enjoying record profits. But I am questioning who's benefiting from them. The rich are getting the majority of those benefits. And what have you been arguing the whole time? Let's cut taxes on the rich. Ridiculous. And what happens when the poor and middle class can't afford to buy any thing? You'd rather we had an economic model similar to Mexico's.
And thanks to cut and spend policies...government has grown and the national debt is climbing. The dollar is at a low. Homes are being forfeited at record levels and the gap between the middle class and the rich are growing. I could care less if the budget deficit is down 50%, there's no excuse for fiscal irresponsibility or 6 consecutive years of budget deficits in any Presidency.
I have never suggested government ownership of the means of production. You guys use the word socialism to mean anything left of center.
and guess what.... I could give a fuck if you want it or not...the democrats in congress and the democrat that will be in the white house in '08 will shove it down your throat (or up your ass) whether you like it or not.
and I will laugh my ass off
