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.
She may also be a space alien, but she contributes to HuffPo.
ok....answer this...How do YOU know this to be true?Actually dumbfuck, Obamination has lowered Tax Revenue with his economic plan attacking investors and companies in the name of the planet and "poor" people.
Tax Revenue increases when people with more of their money invest it into the economy and drive economic progress.
Tax Revenue goes down when Obamination continures to threaten rich people with new tax increases on capital gains and income taxes, continues to shut down companies over the environment, and raises economic costs on companies with Obamacare and supporting unions over the company.
Your theory might have been valid in 1980 when the typical portfolio was invested solely in US stocks and bonds. The bell cow Harvard endowment was 100% invested in US stocks and bonds in 1980 when Reagan implemented his approach. Also at that time the top income tax rate was 70% (almost double today's rate) and capital gains were taxed at 28% (again almost double) current rates.
Today the Harvard Endowment fund is only 30% invested in US stocks and bonds with the remainder being invested overseas. Only someone who is either stupid or disingenuous would believe dropping taxes from their current level would generate more income when only 1/3 of the money is invested locally. Personally, I think Romney is disingenuous and you are not.
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
People who support Romney don't care about his polices. Ok, I take that back. Middle class and poor people who support Romney don't care about his policies. They only care that someone with an (R) next to their name occupies the White House. The rich love his policies for obvious reasons.
People who support Romney don't care about his polices. Ok, I take that back. Middle class and poor people who support Romney don't care about his policies. They only care that someone with an (R) next to their name occupies the White House. The rich love his policies for obvious reasons.
This seems to be true.
I am amazed at how blindly loyal a lot of our more conservative posters here seem to be to their party.
If it has an (R) then it is good and must be defended. If it has (D) it is evil and must be attacked.
I don't think the US will do better as a country until voters start to demand more of the party they vote for.
The presence of this Alana Horowitz is another example of how bad it's become for the print media. Especially the liberally biased print media.
These companies hire these young kids, pay them $25k per year and expect 'toe the editorial line' stories. No hard hitting news. No investigative journalism. Just lefty editorialized pieces. Newspapers in general have been down graded to the level of "never write a story that would take the average reader to get through before he or she gets off the toilet".
Alana Horowitz looks to be about 20 years old.
She is qualified to make coffee for Romney, perhaps.
LOL
The presence of this Alana Horowitz is another example of how bad it's become for the print media. Especially the liberally biased print media.
These companies hire these young kids, pay them $25k per year and expect 'toe the editorial line' stories. No hard hitting news. No investigative journalism. Just lefty editorialized pieces. Newspapers in general have been down graded to the level of "never write a story that would take the average reader to get through before he or she gets off the toilet".
ok....answer this...How do YOU know this to be true?Actually dumbfuck, Obamination has lowered Tax Revenue with his economic plan attacking investors and companies in the name of the planet and "poor" people.
Tax Revenue increases when people with more of their money invest it into the economy and drive economic progress.
Tax Revenue goes down when Obamination continures to threaten rich people with new tax increases on capital gains and income taxes, continues to shut down companies over the environment, and raises economic costs on companies with Obamacare and supporting unions over the company.
Your theory might have been valid in 1980 when the typical portfolio was invested solely in US stocks and bonds. The bell cow Harvard endowment was 100% invested in US stocks and bonds in 1980 when Reagan implemented his approach. Also at that time the top income tax rate was 70% (almost double today's rate) and capital gains were taxed at 28% (again almost double) current rates.
Today the Harvard Endowment fund is only 30% invested in US stocks and bonds with the remainder being invested overseas. Only someone who is either stupid or disingenuous would believe dropping taxes from their current level would generate more income when only 1/3 of the money is invested locally. Personally, I think Romney is disingenuous and you are not.
Did it ever occur to you that these entities have decided to place their money in things such as oh, commodities( oil, gold,currencies)
Trading stocks is no longer an investment. The days of "buy and hold" are for the most part, over.
Much of the money in mutual funds is invested in income funds. Most of the pension funds are in oil and gasoline futures and some of the blue chip stocks which are now
companies such was Walmart and Coca Cola....
Oh lookey! Lakhota started yet ANOTHER thread about someone else's opinion, because, as we all know, it isn't capable of an original thought.
Negged.....again....for being a moron who cannot think....just for one of the many reasons to neg you.
Why? I am not fond of the big government guy.
But he has a plan......What do the dems offer as a counter besides discriminating against certain Americans. While it might make the very stupid rally to the call......It only adds 70 billion to revenue........
Whats the plan............
Just because they have a plan doesn't mean it wont make the situation far worse. The Romney plan will do 2 very negative things.
1) it will further explode the deficit because with only 1/3 of investments being local it won't come close to the return under Reagan
2) it will eliminate capital gains which will reduce the hurdle rate on acquisitions which will further spur hedge funds and corporations who want to acquire assets and use labor arbitrage to drive returns. With a lower hurdle rate the loss of US jobs will escalate further tanking the economy.
The Romney Ryan plan is a disaster for everyone but the super rich.
He would never get elimination of capital gains passed. If true.......
Investments? Which investments? I dont quite follow.
The presence of this Alana Horowitz is another example of how bad it's become for the print media. Especially the liberally biased print media.
These companies hire these young kids, pay them $25k per year and expect 'toe the editorial line' stories. No hard hitting news. No investigative journalism. Just lefty editorialized pieces. Newspapers in general have been down graded to the level of "never write a story that would take the average reader to get through before he or she gets off the toilet".
Maybe so - but until you explain why a tax plan which will cost the US $456 billion a year, starting in 2015 is a good thing - she wins.
If the best argument the right wing can muster in defence of Romey's policies is that you hate journalists, you aren't going to win many elections.
An Unserious Man
By Paul Krugman, August 19, 2012
Mitt Romneys choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, were going to have a real debate about the nations fiscal future. This was predictable: never mind the Tea Party, Mr. Ryans true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you dont like him.
But he isnt and they dont. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined the ticket.
Lets talk about whats actually in the Ryan plan, and lets distinguish in particular between actual, specific policy proposals and unsupported assertions. To focus things a bit more, lets talk as most budget discussions do about whats supposed to happen over the next 10 years.
On the tax side, Mr. Ryan proposes big cuts in tax rates on top income brackets and corporations. He has tried to dodge the normal process in which tax proposals are scored by independent auditors, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math, and the revenue loss from these cuts comes to $4.3 trillion over the next decade.
On the spending side, Mr. Ryan proposes huge cuts in Medicaid, turning it over to the states while sharply reducing funding relative to projections under current policy. That saves around $800 billion. He proposes similar harsh cuts in food stamps, saving a further $130 billion or so, plus a grab-bag of other cuts, such as reduced aid to college students. Lets be generous and say that all these cuts would save $1 trillion.
On top of this, Mr. Ryan includes the $716 billion in Medicare savings that are part of Obamacare, even though he wants to scrap everything else in that act. Despite this, Mr. Ryan has now joined Mr. Romney in denouncing President Obama for cutting Medicare; more on that in a minute.
So if we add up Mr. Ryans specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families. Over all, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around two and a half trillion dollars.
Yet Mr. Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. Whats the basis for that claim?
Alana Horowitz looks to be about 20 years old.
She is qualified to make coffee for Romney, perhaps.
LOL
The presence of this Alana Horowitz is another example of how bad it's become for the print media. Especially the liberally biased print media.
These companies hire these young kids, pay them $25k per year and expect 'toe the editorial line' stories. No hard hitting news. No investigative journalism. Just lefty editorialized pieces. Newspapers in general have been down graded to the level of "never write a story that would take the average reader to get through before he or she gets off the toilet".
This is what makes you a total certified imbecile - Alana Horowitz DIDN'T WRITE THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE - THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD WROTE IT. All Alana did was introduce the story and post it on HuffPo.
Mr. Romney's 'garbage' - The Washington Post Editorial Board
I posted the OP at 8:36 PM - and the first wingnut response was one minute later. Wow, I wish I could digest information that quickly and respond intelligently...
Both party's plans are going to fail this nation.
The Dems plan fails us all in the longer run.
The GOP's plan fails most of us immediately.
There's your choices, citizens.
People who support Romney don't care about his polices. Ok, I take that back. Middle class and poor people who support Romney don't care about his policies. They only care that someone with an (R) next to their name occupies the White House. The rich love his policies for obvious reasons.
my response is pity for anyone who thinks like you.
Why? It's just spam from Lakhota. Lakhota has no opinion of its own.Oh lookey! Lakhota started yet ANOTHER thread about someone else's opinion, because, as we all know, it isn't capable of an original thought.
Negged.....again....for being a moron who cannot think....just for one of the many reasons to neg you.
Rather than attack the poster - why not address the substance of the WaPo or NY Times stories?
It's just spam from Lakhota. Lakhota has no opinion of its own.
