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.
It's definitely semantics...Orwellian semantics.Absolute total nonsense, which presumes, once again, that everything created in the private sector belongs to gubmint first.
Cut with the semantics. It presumes nothing. YOU are doing all the presuming. Tax cuts without spending cuts have to financed by debt. Period. Full-stop. Debt markets don't give a shit about pedantic philosophizing.
The semantics of "tax cuts cost gubmint X" are, without any doubt, presumptive that the funds don't belong to those who earned them...Subtle as the distinction is to you, it exists nonetheless.
I couldn't care less what debt markets (nice abstraction, BTW) think about the matter, as the positive earnings of the productive don't belong to them, either.
In a discussion about the creditworthiness and fiscal balance of the United States, nobody cares about philosophy. Well, almost nobody.
When CON$ can't disprove any data that exposes their dishonesty, they then accuse the source of the accurate data of being biased against CON$ervative lies and therefore a Liberal Democratic source.Can the Obama Economic Plan Boost Your Salary? - PayScale ResourcesBullShit, I noticed you didn't provide a link for your individual job example.Complete BS the studies compare directly for example. The Income including benefits. Of a secretary in the Private sector to one in the Public sector and find the Public sector employee making 2 Times as much.
Care to even try to provide a link to your claim or is that only required if you are not an all knowing Liberal ass.
Again, the dishonest chart CON$ use compares ALL job types combined. Government does not have many low paying blue collar jobs like ditch diggers, they outsource them to the private sector. So your dishonest chart is comparing the average of mostly white collar Gov jobs to the average of mostly blue collar private sector jobs.
As you can see from the below chart that compares the SAME JOB across all sectors, Gov jobs whether state or federal do NOT pay double any other private sector employer for the SAME JOB.
PayScale - Office Administration Skill Wages, Hourly Wage Rate by Employer Type
Median Hourly Rate by Employer Type
Skill: Office Administration
Go figure. Use a democrat supporting source to disprove a republican supporting source. Yep, real impartial.*
Edit: *I was just playing with ya, no such thing as an impartial source.
But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
Honest policy starts with honest semantics....Weasels use weasely language.It's definitely semantics...Orwellian semantics.Cut with the semantics. It presumes nothing. YOU are doing all the presuming. Tax cuts without spending cuts have to financed by debt. Period. Full-stop. Debt markets don't give a shit about pedantic philosophizing.
The semantics of "tax cuts cost gubmint X" are, without any doubt, presumptive that the funds don't belong to those who earned them...Subtle as the distinction is to you, it exists nonetheless.
I couldn't care less what debt markets (nice abstraction, BTW) think about the matter, as the positive earnings of the productive don't belong to them, either.
In a discussion about the creditworthiness and fiscal balance of the United States, nobody cares about philosophy. Well, almost nobody. In finance, its just intellectual masturbation. That's why no one hires philosophy majors.
How to Read a Balance Sheet
Honest policy starts with honest semantics....Weasels use weasely language.
The problem remains that the feds have a spending problem, not a problem with expropriating enough production from the hoi polloy.
When you go from year to year. In order to keep any cash on hand. What you end up doing is reporting a large profit on your personal income tax returns. Money that you are not actually going to use for yourself, but reinvest the next year in your business.
I call BS. In order to pay fewer taxes on your business profit you lie then complain about paying higher taxes on it anyway? A bit of douchebaggery, no?
No, they don't.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
Based on their own statement, it's total compensation. The Fed Govt doesn't have any fast-food workers, tip-wage workers, etc. Most govt positions are degreed white collar professional positions.
Wrong douche bag. They don't lie. They have to report it as Income. But many of them then reinvest a big chunk of it in the next year. Only because they held it past the end of the tax year. They paid taxes as if they made over 250k When much of that so called Income was destined for reinvestment. You clearly know little about how an S class Business operates.
LOL what ever. 123k For civil servants and you think that is a good thing.
Honest policy starts with honest semantics....Weasels use weasely language.It's definitely semantics...Orwellian semantics.
The semantics of "tax cuts cost gubmint X" are, without any doubt, presumptive that the funds don't belong to those who earned them...Subtle as the distinction is to you, it exists nonetheless.
I couldn't care less what debt markets (nice abstraction, BTW) think about the matter, as the positive earnings of the productive don't belong to them, either.
In a discussion about the creditworthiness and fiscal balance of the United States, nobody cares about philosophy. Well, almost nobody. In finance, its just intellectual masturbation. That's why no one hires philosophy majors.
The problem remains that the feds have a spending problem, not a problem with expropriating enough production from the hoi polloy.
Baloney.
Debt problems come as a product of spending beyond one's means....Period.
The problem is the people want a free lunch. All the government services without the fees.
With Congressional midterm elections looming, the financial debate in Washington this fall will probably be consumed by one incendiary and expensive issue: whether, and how, to extend the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts.
President Obama is advocating a mixed bag of tax proposals. He wants to extend the cuts for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and offer businesses hundreds of billions in breaks and write-offs intended to encourage investment and hiring.
Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.
Given the economys persistent weakness and an unemployment rate hovering above 9.5 percent, those arguments have gained traction. And because another round of government stimulus spending is considered politically unviable even if it were warranted, the debate over the tax cuts will be laced with promises to spur economic activity and reduce unemployment. The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all.
But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest bang for the buck, because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?src=busln
Amen.
But don't listen to me, I merely predicted nearly everything that would happen to our economy since 2007.
Listen to yourself, your politicos and your economists who were almost all wrong, wrong wrong!
And BTW, if you embrace the tax cuts you forfeit your rights to complain about the deficit!
Capiche?
First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.With Congressional midterm elections looming, the financial debate in Washington this fall will probably be consumed by one incendiary and expensive issue: whether, and how, to extend the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts.
President Obama is advocating a mixed bag of tax proposals. He wants to extend the cuts for all but the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and offer businesses hundreds of billions in breaks and write-offs intended to encourage investment and hiring.
Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.
Given the economys persistent weakness and an unemployment rate hovering above 9.5 percent, those arguments have gained traction. And because another round of government stimulus spending is considered politically unviable even if it were warranted, the debate over the tax cuts will be laced with promises to spur economic activity and reduce unemployment. The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all.
But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest bang for the buck, because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?src=busln
Amen.
But don't listen to me, I merely predicted nearly everything that would happen to our economy since 2007.
Listen to yourself, your politicos and your economists who were almost all wrong, wrong wrong!
And BTW, if you embrace the tax cuts you forfeit your rights to complain about the deficit!
Capiche?
While I don't agree with just tax cuts to stimulate the economy the facts have shown an increase in govt revenues from 2003 to 2006 (Bush tax cuts enacted). This refutes the left's claim that revenues decrease.
"Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)"
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)
Ideology doesn't change the economic fact that if you don't spend too much, you don't have any problems with debt.Baloney.
Debt problems come as a product of spending beyond one's means....Period.
And a leftist would say that deficit problems come from not taxing enough. That statement, like yours, is a political opinion irrelevant to finance.
If you cut taxes and don't cut spending, the tax cuts caused the deficit. If you raise spending and don't raise taxes, then the spending caused the deficit.
A right-winger always says there is too much spending. A leftist always says there is not enough spending. Its ideology and its all the same.
First of all, revenue fell after both Reagan's and Kennedy's tax cuts. And the increased revenue after Bush's capital gains tax cuts was from Speculators dumping their capital assets like real estate, flooding the market which eventually burst the real estate bubble, not from economic growth.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?src=busln
Amen.
But don't listen to me, I merely predicted nearly everything that would happen to our economy since 2007.
Listen to yourself, your politicos and your economists who were almost all wrong, wrong wrong!
And BTW, if you embrace the tax cuts you forfeit your rights to complain about the deficit!
Capiche?
While I don't agree with just tax cuts to stimulate the economy the facts have shown an increase in govt revenues from 2003 to 2006 (Bush tax cuts enacted). This refutes the left's claim that revenues decrease.
"Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)"
Growth In Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 To 2006(Lower Tax Rates Increase Tax Revenues Collected)
Total Federal Tax Collections (billions)
Year Constant (87 dollars)
---------------------------------------
1980 $728.1
1981 766.6 < Reagan tax cut passed in August
1982 738.2 < drop in total revenue
1983 684.3 < drop in total revenue
1984 730.4 < Reagan raises taxes
1985 776.6 < Reagan raises taxes again, 81 level recovered
1986 790.0 < Reagan raises taxes yet again
1987 854.1 < Reagan raises taxes some more
1988 877.3
Source - Internal Revenue Service.
Kennedy tax cuts
Federal Income Tax Collections (Constant dollars, CPI-U)
Year Receipts Percent change from previous year
--------------------------------------------------
1961 $138,069 ---
1962 150,567 + 9.0%
1963 155,375 + 3.2
1964 156,804 + 0.9 < tax cut takes effect
1965 154,475 - 1.5 < drop in revenue
Source - U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government, FY 1996. Dollar conversions made from CPI-U.
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
OK, You win. Tax cuts ROCK!
So lets do the only sensible thing and eliminate ALL taxes!!!!!!
And if that doesn't stimulate the economy enough we can drop money from space! By the Brazzillion!
What could go wrong?
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
OK, You win. Tax cuts ROCK!
So lets do the only sensible thing and eliminate ALL taxes!!!!!!
And if that doesn't stimulate the economy enough we can drop money from space! By the Brazzillion!
What could go wrong?
Inflation was over 13% and the prime rate was over 20% when Reagan took office. The Volcker contraction of the money supply sent the country into recession to tame inflation. The drop in GDP reduced tax receipts far more than the beginning of the Reagan Tax cuts.
The subsequent increase in revenues is due to GDP growth fueled by the cumulative effect of tax cuts.
OK, You win. Tax cuts ROCK!
So lets do the only sensible thing and eliminate ALL taxes!!!!!!
And if that doesn't stimulate the economy enough we can drop money from space! By the Brazzillion!
What could go wrong?
What a moron. Saying a glass or two of wine a day is good for one's health is not the equivalent of advocating drinking a case of ripple.
Advocating for limited government is not the same as supporting anarchy.
