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.
You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.
That's utterly false. Tax cuts have never been shown to increase revenue. By cause and effect.
Every example that is ever cited by the people who make this claim is nothing more than a fallacious post hoc argument.
It is however the perfect rightwing myth. It fulfills both requirements of the perfect myth.
1. it's exactly what people want to believe
2. it's receptive to convincing, albeit totally fallacious, arguments.
You are an economic illiterate. How sad.
The question no one will answer is,
If sacrifice is necessary to fix the fiscal mess, why should the wealthy be exempt?
If fixing the problem is going to cost so and so making 40,000 a year, why shouldn't it cost so and so making 4 million a year?
Here's why, you nattering nabob of nonsense:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
getty images/nancyney
What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.
Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. ...
Tax refugees staging escape from New York - NYPOST.com
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan
The question no one will answer is,
If sacrifice is necessary to fix the fiscal mess, why should the wealthy be exempt?
If fixing the problem is going to cost so and so making 40,000 a year, why shouldn't it cost so and so making 4 million a year?
Here's why, you nattering nabob of nonsense:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
getty images/nancyney
What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.
Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. ...
Tax refugees staging escape from New York - NYPOST.com
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan
Cutting taxes is stupid, it reduces revenue and we continue to pay interest on the debt and not fix the roof.
You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.
Your use of my quote in part is disingenuous, and in particular my observaton on name calling.
That aside, I suggest you quit your job and use credit cards for all of you purchases. That in this illiterates opinion is what President Bush did. He cut taxes, invaded and occupied Iraq at the same time.
In another post you characterize the "private sector" as homogeneous. That is far from true. Some of the private sector has done very well under the Bush Economy and to suggest the winners 'suffered' is dishonest.
Small business, which the Republican and Democratic Party leaders suggest is the engine of the economy have suffered dearly and too many have failed. Small business survives and thrives when people have money in their pocket to spend. Cutting taxes to millionaires and billionaires does little or nothing to the local deli, dry cleaner, supermarket, ice cream shop, craft store, and mall.
We need pragmatic solutons unencumbered by ideology.
I don't want to raise anyones taxes.
But fair is fair. If the top earners have to pay more then the bottom earners should have to pay as well.
Fair is the word you throw around like a football.
Whats fair about some payin all and some paying nothing???
First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.
Which is it?
Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.
If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.
After all. Fair is Fair.
First you said you want their taxes raised, now you say you don't. Then you say you do.
Which is it?
Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.
If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.
After all. Fair is Fair.
The lower and middle classes will pay if things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are cut. That is their share of the sacrifice.
What is wealthy's share?
The question no one will answer is,
If sacrifice is necessary to fix the fiscal mess, why should the wealthy be exempt?
If fixing the problem is going to cost so and so making 40,000 a year, why shouldn't it cost so and so making 4 million a year?
Here's why, you nattering nabob of nonsense:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
getty images/nancyney
What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.
Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. ...
Tax refugees staging escape from New York - NYPOST.com
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ~Ronald Reagan
We need pragmatic solutons unencumbered by ideology. Always remember non sequiturs do not an argument make and as Mark Twain pointed out, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics".
Have a nice day.
Thought my post was pretty clear. I'll clarify just for you NYC.
If the taxes on the high earners get raised then everyones taxes should be raised. That includes the 50% who pay for nothing. Pretty simple really.
After all. Fair is Fair.
The lower and middle classes will pay if things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are cut. That is their share of the sacrifice.
What is wealthy's share?
The wealthy pay more taxes than you do.
The lower and middle classes will pay if things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are cut. That is their share of the sacrifice.
What is wealthy's share?
The wealthy pay more taxes than you do.
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
You are an economic illiterate. Tax cuts increase revenue. This has been happened consistently due to the resulting economic growth.
Your use of my quote in part is disingenuous, and in particular my observaton on name calling.
That aside, I suggest you quit your job and use credit cards for all of you purchases. That in this illiterates opinion is what President Bush did. He cut taxes, invaded and occupied Iraq at the same time.
In another post you characterize the "private sector" as homogeneous. That is far from true. Some of the private sector has done very well under the Bush Economy and to suggest the winners 'suffered' is dishonest.
Small business, which the Republican and Democratic Party leaders suggest is the engine of the economy have suffered dearly and too many have failed. Small business survives and thrives when people have money in their pocket to spend. Cutting taxes to millionaires and billionaires does little or nothing to the local deli, dry cleaner, supermarket, ice cream shop, craft store, and mall.
We need pragmatic solutons unencumbered by ideology.
You will not find ANY posts of mine in which I defend deficit spending. If it was bad for Bush, it is 5X worse for Obama.
We don't have an undertaxed problem...we have an overspending problem. Crowing about Shared Sacrifice in order to keep funneling taxpayer money (from any source) into unproductive, unnecessary, and economically wasteful government programs is just another way of perpetuating the problem.
The lower and middle classes will pay if things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are cut. That is their share of the sacrifice.
What is wealthy's share?
The wealthy pay more taxes than you do.
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
The lower and middle classes will pay if things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are cut. That is their share of the sacrifice.
What is wealthy's share?
The wealthy pay more taxes than you do.
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
Your use of my quote in part is disingenuous, and in particular my observaton on name calling.
That aside, I suggest you quit your job and use credit cards for all of you purchases. That in this illiterates opinion is what President Bush did. He cut taxes, invaded and occupied Iraq at the same time.
In another post you characterize the "private sector" as homogeneous. That is far from true. Some of the private sector has done very well under the Bush Economy and to suggest the winners 'suffered' is dishonest.
Small business, which the Republican and Democratic Party leaders suggest is the engine of the economy have suffered dearly and too many have failed. Small business survives and thrives when people have money in their pocket to spend. Cutting taxes to millionaires and billionaires does little or nothing to the local deli, dry cleaner, supermarket, ice cream shop, craft store, and mall.
We need pragmatic solutons unencumbered by ideology.
You will not find ANY posts of mine in which I defend deficit spending. If it was bad for Bush, it is 5X worse for Obama.
We don't have an undertaxed problem...we have an overspending problem. Crowing about Shared Sacrifice in order to keep funneling taxpayer money (from any source) into unproductive, unnecessary, and economically wasteful government programs is just another way of perpetuating the problem.
Of course I disagree. Not on defict spending, on the hyperbole of it being worse (five times) when done by President Obama. You see Bush paid for a war of choice, which gained us nothing but misery; Obama added to the deficit some benefits, jobless worked, supplier supplied, pot holes filled and roads widened. We gained some benefit but not enough.
The not enough is the problem, as I posted and you ignored, people spent when they have money in their pocket. When they don't deli's close, malls close, hotels close and more people's pockets are empty.
The wealthy pay more taxes than you do.
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
I call shenanigans. What government services does somebody who pays $500,000 per year in taxes receive that are more valuable than what is received by somebody who pays no taxes?
Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.
"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.
"The rich have plenty of money to spare."
Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.
The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."
Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."
It's another lie the rich tell.
When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.
Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!
They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.
"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."
The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
I call shenanigans. What government services does somebody who pays $500,000 per year in taxes receive that are more valuable than what is received by somebody who pays no taxes?
Access and influence. The former has no portal to power, the latter a private jet.
You will not find ANY posts of mine in which I defend deficit spending. If it was bad for Bush, it is 5X worse for Obama.
We don't have an undertaxed problem...we have an overspending problem. Crowing about Shared Sacrifice in order to keep funneling taxpayer money (from any source) into unproductive, unnecessary, and economically wasteful government programs is just another way of perpetuating the problem.
Of course I disagree. Not on defict spending, on the hyperbole of it being worse (five times) when done by President Obama. You see Bush paid for a war of choice, which gained us nothing but misery; Obama added to the deficit some benefits, jobless worked, supplier supplied, pot holes filled and roads widened. We gained some benefit but not enough.
The not enough is the problem, as I posted and you ignored, people spent when they have money in their pocket. When they don't deli's close, malls close, hotels close and more people's pockets are empty.
I didn't ignore it. It's meaningless to me personally. I don't live beyond my means on credit cards.
And if you think $1.6T deficits are the equivalent of $300B deficits, you have a serious perception issues.
What's your point? The wealthy benefit more from government spending than I do.
I call shenanigans. What government services does somebody who pays $500,000 per year in taxes receive that are more valuable than what is received by somebody who pays no taxes?
Access and influence. The former has no portal to power, the latter a private jet.
Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.
"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.
"The rich have plenty of money to spare."
Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.
The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."
Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."
It's another lie the rich tell.
When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.
Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!
They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.
"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."
The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams
