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.
I am no economist so my opinions on "trickle down" economics is moot. But as a business owner in NJ, I have seen what over regulation and over taxation has done to our economy. Misery has certainly "trickled down" and sent businesses packing. And even those that are doing ok aren't hiring or spending because they know they "aint seen nuttin yet"
Gotta rep zoom for this title.
Did you happen to see what UNDER regulation did to our economy when Dubya had to bail out the banks and insurance companies?
Bush actually didn't deregulate anything. In fact GW increased the budgets for the SEC and other regulatory agencies.
The great Bush 'deregulation' myth :: Jeff Jacoby
and before you start calling me a right wing Bush fan, please know that I never voted for him and IMO he is a complete moron but the truth is the truth.
WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM?
...WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM?
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
About 114 of those provisions are included in the draft under review by the Senate Finance Committee.
http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/06-17-09_House__GOP_Solutions__Group__Outline.pdf
The big question was why was that four-page dictate necessary in light of the formal bill introduced in May? The Republicans seemed to be just throwing stuff out there just to make headlines.
Well, the tax on smokes makes it more expensive to smoke so many smokers will quit. Ooo, savings on health care, yeah! One problem -- they are using the tax increase from smokes to provide for SCHIP. Oh, and they also allotted $75million in the stimuless package for . . . . wait for it . . . smoking cessation programs!
Smoking cessation programs and higher taxes on smokes = less smokers
Less smokers = less tax received
Less tax received = where the hell are they going to get the SCHIP money from?
Where the hell are they going to get SCHIP money from = tax something else
See the pattern?
Government, redefining stupidity daily.
I explained this scenario to one of my many liberal former colleagues and they did not believe it. I pulled up the information for them and they sat there dumfounded that the government could do something so asinine.
They still maintain Obama will "fix America" though...
Don't think he ever promised to "fix" everything. But do any of you have better ideas? Do Republicans? Conservatives? Libertarians? WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM? So far, all I've seen from them is an acknowledgement that, yes, we have a problem with out of control costs by the private sector. So far, I see zero solutions put forth by any of you, none, nada, zip--short of implying that people should just bite the bullet and die if necessary. Super... yeah, that's the ticket.
Which tax increases do the current administration and Congress intend to enact? There are more than a dozen, all of which would negatively affect our economy.
One has already been signed into law by President Obama: an increase in the tax on tobacco, to $1.01 a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents, and to as much as 40 cents a cigar from a nickel--increases of 159% and 700%, respectively. This is expected to bring in $8 billion a year. Next up is a possible increase in alcohol, beer and wine taxes, raising about another $6 billion annually, and perhaps another $5 billion a year on sugary drinks will be enacted.
Then come a series of substantial tax increases that are on the Washington agenda that, if enacted, will create real problems for our country's economy.
First, allowing the expiration of the previous Bush administration tax cuts at the end of 2010. These reductions increased government tax receipts by $785 billion (just as the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts increased tax revenues) and gave us eight million new jobs over a 52-month period. The cuts go away if Congress does nothing, raising tax rates on the top earners will to 39.6% from 35%, and on the next-highest bracket to 36% from 33%. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 55% of these tax increases will come from small-business income.
Next comes Rep. Charles Rangel's additional tax increases, a part of the House health-care bill. The House Ways and Means chairman calls for a 1% surtax on couples with more than $350,000 in income, 1.5% on incomes more than $500,000, and 5.4% on incomes more than $1 million. The extra tax would kick in at lower levels for unmarried taxpayers. And if promised health-care cost savings don't materialize, the surtaxes would automatically double.
The House health-care bill contains several tax increases that would hit couples earning under $250,000 a year, contrary to President Obama's promises: $8.2 billion of tax increases for people using health savings accounts or other tax-free savings to purchase over-the-counter drugs; a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Tax" of $2 billion on all private and "public option" insurance, plus up to 8% paid by employers--mostly small businesses--that don't offer health insurance. There is even a proposed tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.
Then come some other tax increases the administration has favored:
An increased tax on American companies doing business in other countries.
Raising or abolishing the wage cap on Social Security taxes, which would effectively convert Social Security into a welfare program.
Reducing the tax benefit for itemized deductions like charitable contributions, which would reduce philanthropy.
And then there's the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill that has passed the House and will be taken up in the Senate this fall. It would give the government total control of the production, prices, availability and use of energy and add a global energy tax to imported goods--serious American protectionism. It would shrink America's economy by $400 billion each year and cause the loss of some 2.5 million jobs. For a household of four it would cost an average of about $3,000 a year. By 2035 the total family annual increased cost would be $4,600 for power, food, supplies, gasoline and transportation.
All told, the administration and Congress are pushing massive tax increases. Without a specific proposal we don't know how much taxes would go up if the Social Security ceiling is raised, but add the others up and we see up to $200 billion--and it could well be much more--in annual tax increases on businesses, individuals and the overall economy, which is already in recession.
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger observes that "to an independent voter or moderate Democrat, President Everyman is starting to look like a salesman for the superstate." These many proposed tax increases reinforce the point. They not only would be economically damaging, but chart a very scary course for our country.
The High Cost of Liberalism - WSJ.com
I am no economist so my opinions on "trickle down" economics is moot. But as a business owner in NJ, I have seen what over regulation and over taxation has done to our economy. Misery has certainly "trickled down" and sent businesses packing. And even those that are doing ok aren't hiring or spending because they know they "aint seen nuttin yet"
Gotta rep zoom for this title.
Maybe if your fellow business owners (the larger ones) ponied up their fair share, you wouldn't be getting the brunt of over-taxation. Taxes and fees aren't established to be mean, they're levied because local/state/federal money is needed to keep infrastructure, etc., running. If people and businesses would just stop trying to run out on their obligations, we wouldn't have such a problem and the political blame would stop. It has zero to do with "politics" when over 52,000 wealthy American hid $15 billion in Swiss Bank UBS just last year, when two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to the GAO.
Thank you Mountain Man and I take personal offense to an accusation of being a tax cheat. We have not run out on our obligations nor do we have off shore bank accounts. We pay more than our "fair share" and have never collected one dime in entitlements. My son is ineligible for financial aid for college so we are paying tuition for him and prob two others from a foreign fucking country. I do not complain UNTIL someone says "ha ha sucker" or "you're being "unpatriotic" then I get my fucking back up.
Sorry asshole you aint getting more than half our dough. Even if I have pay some sleazy accountant the difference. Or maybe lay off half our crew.
Man I'm pissed.
What is clear is we would never vote for the tax plan we have now. We would be having full time tea parties.Thank you Mountain Man and I take personal offense to an accusation of being a tax cheat. We have not run out on our obligations nor do we have off shore bank accounts. We pay more than our "fair share" and have never collected one dime in entitlements. My son is ineligible for financial aid for college so we are paying tuition for him and prob two others from a foreign fucking country. I do not complain UNTIL someone says "ha ha sucker" or "you're being "unpatriotic" then I get my fucking back up.
Sorry asshole you aint getting more than half our dough. Even if I have pay some sleazy accountant the difference. Or maybe lay off half our crew.
Man I'm pissed.
Nobody has ever been able to satisfactorily define the term "fair share" to me when it comes to taxes.
If I ask them if a flat tax of X% would be fair if every paid the exact same rate, somehow they don't think that is fair.
If I ask them if a flat dollar amount of X dollars for each person would be fair, they don't think that is fair either.
Generally, anybody that uses the term "fair share" want's somebody else to pay more in taxes than they do.
I have yet to see anybody (honestly) proclaim that that personal "fair share" should be higher and then voluntarily send more money to the government.
Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
14 mins ago
WASHINGTON In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.
But before President Barack Obama can do much about it, he'll have to weather recession aftershocks including unemployment that his advisers said Tuesday is still heading for 10 percent.
Overall, White House and congressional budget analysts said in a brace of new estimates that the economy will shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession. Those estimates reflect this year's deeper-than-expected economic plunge.
The grim deficit news presents Obama with both immediate and longer-term challenges. The still fragile economy cannot afford deficit-fighting cures such as spending cuts or tax increases. But nervous holders of U.S. debt, particularly foreign bondholders, could demand interest rate increases that would quickly be felt in the pocketbooks of American consumers.
Amid the gloomy numbers on Tuesday, Obama signaled his satisfaction with improvements in the economy by announcing he would nominate Republican Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The announcement, welcomed on Wall Street, diverted attention from the budget news and helped neutralize any disturbance in the financial markets from the high deficit projections.
The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.
"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.
The deficit numbers also could complicate Obama's drive to persuade Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years. Obama has said he doesn't want the measure to add to the deficit, but lawmakers have been unable to agree on revenues that would cover the cost.
What's more, the high unemployment is expected to last well into the congressional election campaign next year, turning the contests into a referendum on Obama's economic policies....
I am no economist so my opinions on "trickle down" economics is moot. But as a business owner in NJ, I have seen what over regulation and over taxation has done to our economy. Misery has certainly "trickled down" and sent businesses packing. And even those that are doing ok aren't hiring or spending because they know they "aint seen nuttin yet"
Gotta rep zoom for this title.
Maybe if your fellow business owners (the larger ones) ponied up their fair share, you wouldn't be getting the brunt of over-taxation. Taxes and fees aren't established to be mean, they're levied because local/state/federal money is needed to keep infrastructure, etc., running. If people and businesses would just stop trying to run out on their obligations, we wouldn't have such a problem and the political blame would stop. It has zero to do with "politics" when over 52,000 wealthy American hid $15 billion in Swiss Bank UBS just last year, when two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to the GAO.
Please tell me what everybody's "fair share" is, since you are so brilliant. Do you think that if WalMart's taxes were tripled, they just might raise the price of their goods to offset that tax? Who do you think would pay that?
Thank you Mountain Man and I take personal offense to an accusation of being a tax cheat. We have not run out on our obligations nor do we have off shore bank accounts. We pay more than our "fair share" and have never collected one dime in entitlements. My son is ineligible for financial aid for college so we are paying tuition for him and prob two others from a foreign fucking country. I do not complain UNTIL someone says "ha ha sucker" or "you're being "unpatriotic" then I get my fucking back up.
Sorry asshole you aint getting more than half our dough. Even if I have pay some sleazy accountant the difference. Or maybe lay off half our crew.
Man I'm pissed.
Thank you Mountain Man and I take personal offense to an accusation of being a tax cheat. We have not run out on our obligations nor do we have off shore bank accounts. We pay more than our "fair share" and have never collected one dime in entitlements. My son is ineligible for financial aid for college so we are paying tuition for him and prob two others from a foreign fucking country. I do not complain UNTIL someone says "ha ha sucker" or "you're being "unpatriotic" then I get my fucking back up.
Sorry asshole you aint getting more than half our dough. Even if I have pay some sleazy accountant the difference. Or maybe lay off half our crew.
Man I'm pissed.
Nobody has ever been able to satisfactorily define the term "fair share" to me when it comes to taxes.
If I ask them if a flat tax of X% would be fair if everybody paid the exact same rate, somehow they don't think that is fair.
If I ask them if a flat dollar amount of X dollars for each person would be fair, they don't think that is fair either.
Generally, anybody that uses the term "fair share" want's somebody else to pay more in taxes than they do.
I have yet to see anybody (honestly) proclaim that that personal "fair share" should be higher and then voluntarily send more money to the government.
I just wish democwats would pay taxes and give the rest of us a rest.
Does anyone worry that their credit cards, mortgage, car payments are too high? Didn't think so. So why would the deficit be a problem? Oh, you mean you do worry about your own debt? Silly you:
Thank you Mountain Man and I take personal offense to an accusation of being a tax cheat. We have not run out on our obligations nor do we have off shore bank accounts. We pay more than our "fair share" and have never collected one dime in entitlements. My son is ineligible for financial aid for college so we are paying tuition for him and prob two others from a foreign fucking country. I do not complain UNTIL someone says "ha ha sucker" or "you're being "unpatriotic" then I get my fucking back up.
Sorry asshole you aint getting more than half our dough. Even if I have pay some sleazy accountant the difference. Or maybe lay off half our crew.
Man I'm pissed.
Did I accuse you of being a tax cheat? Are you? Seems you got a little nervous, there. And I'm confused over your "ha ha sucker" and "unpatriotic" references, the latter presumably being a comment made by Biden(?) that not paying taxes was unpatriotic (or some such thing that only YOU can probably even remember).
But who has been calling you a "sucker." Awwww....
I just wish democwats would pay taxes and give the rest of us a rest.
Doubt it will ever happen. All they do is get some whacked out doctor to claim something is "bad" for us or some scientist to claim it's "bad" for the environment to justify the next huge tax hike.
