81% agree, raise taxes

[Mr. Shaman]

We'll always have debt. Clinton and the Republicans cut spending AND raised taxes, and at least that resulted in a balanced budget. And it happened in record time, following massive debt left by Bush41 who inherited it from Reagan.

President George HW Bush was a pragmatist and began addressing the "debt problem" early on. It probably cost him the Presidency but it was the right thing to do for the country.

I agree.

 

[Misty]

So I've seen a thread on here that 2/3rds of US corporations pay no income tax, I've seen threads where the rich hide their money, roll over profits, have all sorts of ways to avoid paying taxes.

If the rich and corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes in the system, what is the point of raising these taxes that already are not being paid?

Are you getting it yet?

The rich have now become people who make 250,000 a year. Not rich enough to afford the loopholes and not poor enough to have deductions.

I call that the middle class. Not the rich. These are the people that get SCREWED by everyone democrats and republicans and the people of the US who say, make the rich pay more taxes.

 

[gekaap]

Would you say the Bush tax cuts did NOT work as it pertians to employment?

Personally, yes. I would say that the Bush tax cuts did NOT work to aid employment. Bush had a dismal employment record.

Now be careful...do not toss out those left leaning misleading stats of employment cause I will show you how they are misleading...

So what you're saying is that when the data support a conclusion of the left, it should be dismissed? That makes no sense, unless you're not interested in the truth.

But did you not see unemployment pretty much remain stable after the tax cuts?

Nope, I never saw that. I saw unemployment raise 2% from Jan 03 to June 06, then dip to slightly more than pre-Bush levels a couple years later, only to hit another upswing in the last year of his Presidency.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That we should raise taxes on the wealthy in our time of need.

Of COIURSE they do. That's how class warfare works.

....Not-to-mention a FULLY-FUNCTIONING economy......​

"If one believed everything the Republican National Committee and Fox News put out, it would be easy to think that achieving economic prosperity is simple: start with a big tax cut, blend in some spending reductions, add a dash of deregulation and sit back and watch the economy cook. After all, Republican presidents use this recipe and the economy booms as a result, right?

Interestingly, a recent Forbes article and a separate American Progress Action Fund analysis show that this assumption is a myth."

Economic Prosperity And The Presidents​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I do not consider you qualified or unqualified...I do not know you.
But I also know that your "virtually none" statistic is inaccurate and so I questioned why you needed to assert a false statistic to support your argument.
Are you not confident in your position?

No it's actually quite accurate based on what I've been able to obtain on the subject. Only kool-aid drinking Randians support that claim.

Our history sure as shit doesn't.

You are researching sites or data with a left spin to it.

Would you say the Bush tax cuts did NOT work as it pertians to employment?

Until the recession, did you see an increase in unemployment?

LOL!!!!

"Until the RECESSION..."!!!!!

LOL!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

All I would like to know is one thing, why do so many support raising taxes on anyone. Shit rolls downhill and those tax increases will eventually hurt the poor,minorities,unskilled,undereducated, etc. the hardest. It seems like it hurts the very ones you would want to help.

I guess you'd need to be old-enough to have been there.....​

August 5, 1996​

"The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

"Taxes: The Highest in History?"

(RepubliSHIT from the Clinton Years. )​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is a faction on the right that react like this when they cant refute the facts presented.

The factds are that we have created tons of jobs and had great economies with much higher tax rates on the wealthy.

If you note when the economy is bad they say "you cant raise taxes now"


When the econony is good they say "you cant raise taxes now".


They only want them cut and cut and cut.

The are the fiscally irresponsible party.

They NEVER want the wealthy to pay their fair share no matter how much the wealthy rape the economy

At what point in history of this country has taxing the wealthy created jobs and led to prosperity? Can you name that point? Or are you following the alinsky leftist cue and presenting that point hoping people believe you?

During the boom years of the 90's, it was an EMPLOYEE'S market; if you had the skills, you could pretty much get the salary you wanted.

BINGO!!!!!!

(....Not to mention, they were also the last-generation NOT to benefit from perpetual-gaming. )​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You are researching sites or data with a left spin to it.

Would you say the Bush tax cuts did NOT work as it pertians to employment?

Until the recession, did you see an increase in unemployment?

Now be careful...do not toss out those left leaning misleading stats of employment cause I will show you how they are misleading...

But did you not see unemployment pretty much remain stable after the tax cuts?

It was a classic bubble-burst that caused the economic growth and consequential recession; In this case housing, but remember credit cards in the 80s and stocks in the 90s. As to unemployment, it's a lagging indicator; last down and last back up, same as it's always been.

I'm trying to say this without sounding indignant, but I've truly not heard serious weight given to the "Taxes on the rich damage the economy" argument outside of Republican echo-chambers. I think even nearly any 1st year ECO student could tell you that throwing money out of airplanes would give more stimulus than tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you dispute the claim, tell me why and I'll look at it, but so far you've only said I'm wrong.

In the 2000's...starting early on....

We had massive layoffs due to the dot com bubble burst.

We had an increase in technology resulting in individual employee voice mail (eliminating the need for receptionists and switchboards), boolean internet searche capabilities (eliminating the need for large research departments), advanced copiers with collating even for the smaller companies (eliminating the need for large copy staffs) advanced graphics on the pc(eliminatint the need for printing firms and printing departments within companies) advanced word processing capabilities (eliminating the needs for multiple secretaries...or less secreatries per executive) teleconferecning (eliminating travel affecting employment needs with hotels, arilines, etc)....and I can continue...
AND...we had a generous growth in population.

Yet....unemployment did not increase.

Seems there was plenty of corporate growth thanks to the tax cuts.

Curious...do those stats that claim there was no net job growth explain that there was no net job growth yet there was good reason for there to be generous job loss?

Thus what I mean when I say the stats you see are left leaning.

....And, you're (obviously) too-young to (actually) remember those days.... ​

Crossfire

March 20, 2001​

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, charges that President Bush is talking down the economy.

PRESS: Every time we turn around, this guy is bad-mouthing the economy. Is that lifting our spirit or dumping on it in order to sell his tax cut?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAZIO: It just kills the left, Bill, doesn't it, that you have a Republican, conservative president with soaring popularity talking straight with the American people, an economic plan to get the economy rolling again, and all the left can do is to try and smear him and drag him down?

PRESS: No, here's what gets me is that you have a president who is supposed to be a cheerleader and he sounds like a mortician. I mean, he's always around here saying how bad things are. My advice for President Bush, I think would help the economy a lot is if you can't say something positive, don't say anything at all. That's my grandmothers' advice. Say something positive or keep your mouth shut.

LAZIO: What he's saying is put the people's money back in their pockets, let them spend it, get the economy rolling. Let's acknowledge the energy crisis. Let's not put our head in the sand. Let's not do what we've done for eight years under the Clinton administration.

Is President Bush Talking Down the Economy and Talking Up an Energy Crisis?​

November 26, 2001​

"The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time.

At the White House, President Bush, whose father lost the White House partly as a result of the country's last recession, said the declaration added urgency to the need to get a package of economic stimulus measures approved by Congress and passed into law.

"I knew the economy was not in good shape right after I took office," he said. "We will do everything we can to enhance recovery."

The president called on Congress to move quickly to pass an economic stimulus so that he will be able to "sign it before Christmas."

Economists Call It Recession​

MAY 1 - 15, 2003​

"What caused this economic downturn goes back to when George W. Bush was merely President-elect, waiting to take office, and continued on through his first six months in office.

Repeatedly, President-elect, and then President, Bush talked about how the economy was in trouble. Arriving in office following the longest continuous economic upturn in generations, President Bush seized on a stock market that had faltered some in the uncertainty following the 2000 Presidential election.

The "bad" economy, he talked about. Again and again. The "bad" economy.

You know what happened as a result? I can tell you from my personal experience, the CFO of the corporation I was working for called a meeting and said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

And you can see right there how simply the words of President George W. Bush started slamming the breaks of the economy.

This, of course, all snowballed.

Why was President-elect Bush claiming the economy was bad if it wasn't?

Simply, the American people, those that voted for him and those who didn't, didn't support his enormous tax cut. So he set out to try and convince people that the economy was bad - which in Republican terms means in need of stimulation through tax cuts. If he could make everyone think things were starting to go in the crapper, he believed he could justify his larger tax cut."

COULD BUSH REALLY BE TO BLAME?​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is a faction on the right that react like this when they cant refute the facts presented.

The factds are that we have created tons of jobs and had great economies with much higher tax rates on the wealthy.

If you note when the economy is bad they say "you cant raise taxes now"


When the econony is good they say "you cant raise taxes now".


They only want them cut and cut and cut.

The are the fiscally irresponsible party.

They NEVER want the wealthy to pay their fair share no matter how much the wealthy rape the economy

A few hundred people in the entire country think it is a good idea to raise taxes when the economy is tettering.............virtually all can be found in the twilight internet zone.........although some public k00ks exist out there like that nut Garafalo and Michael Moore, who by the way is one of the top stories on DRUDGE right now for some genius public.statement he made today

Michael Moore, another leftist who hates capitalism even though he has made Millions off of capitalism. He is a fat bastard retard.

....And....as USUAL....he's right.

(What really pisses-off you White-Wingers.)

*

*


NEXT??!!!​

 

[Immanuel]

Isn't it always?

well, all those evil corps got together and conspired to get republicans elected
if you believe maggies nonsense
LOL
forget that corps gave about equally to democrats in the last election

Then why have they begun hiring again? Some things just write themselves, so I don't even need to do any digging at all.

Who the hell has started hiring again? I think you are promoting a myth.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I wonder if those same 81% would vote to raise their own taxes?

They prolly polled folks in an unemployment line.....

Prolly?

 

[MaggieMae]

The wealthy can chose not to pay the taxes by taking their money and moving oout of the country.


They pay the same amount as everyone else who makes as much as they do in this country.


IF you wish to stay in this country and use its infrastructure so that you can gain more money then you should pay for that use.


America is the worlds top market and coming with the ability to access this top market comes a fee.


Its called taxes.


Instead of just permitting the wealthy to just move here and get a free ride on all America has to offer them they need to pay for their use of everything the people have invested in and built.


When federal funds are doled out to the states so they can maintain roads and bridges I think the people who use them the most should pony up a good chunk of the cost to build and maintain such things.


The wealthy benifit the most from our infrastructure and each dollar they make in the US reflects that use.

It also reflects their need to pitch in and pony up their fair share of the cost to build, fix and maintain our countries LIFE BLOOD of industry, Our infrastructure.

Besides, the ******* rich bastards, I hate them. You are right, comrade. Let's see if I have this straight.

1) People need the money, so they should receives what they need

2) Rich pricks can afford it, so they should pay what I want because I have decided they have the means.

So you are saying from each according to their means to each according to their needs.

Where have I heard this before???

That doesn't even come close to what she said.

 

[Gadawg73]

They ran a study that a single mother working part time has more disposable income after all her bills are paid, by government I might add, than a family of 4 with 1 income of 60K.
This was in Cleveland.
How come Obammie has not asked her to make cuts and work a little harder and CLOSE HER LEGS?

 

[MaggieMae]

Proof?

Nope!

He's got the entire field of economics behind him, but you mean what does he have beyond that? You got him there...

When the proof supports the sentiments of the right, the left insists on additional proof.

They see theory as proof and facts as not worthy of consideration.

What "proof" are we talking about here? Who is "him"?? And what "entire field of economics"??

 

[kaz]

He's got the entire field of economics behind him, but you mean what does he have beyond that? You got him there...

When the proof supports the sentiments of the right, the left insists on additional proof.

They see theory as proof and facts as not worthy of consideration.

What "proof" are we talking about here? Who is "him"?? And what "entire field of economics"??

Find the quote and you'll find "Him." No one's going to go back a few pages and find it for you just because you're too lazy to do it yourself.

Also, you don't know what economics is?

 

[MaggieMae]

fAiL.........Common Dreams is a fake website visited only by far lefties

Every poll you dont agree with is accused of bias. Nothing is true unless you believe it so.

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

 

[Jarhead]

They ran a study that a single mother working part time has more disposable income after all her bills are paid, by government I might add, than a family of 4 with 1 income of 60K.
This was in Cleveland.
How come Obammie has not asked her to make cuts and work a little harder and CLOSE HER LEGS?

Oh Jeez....tell me you didnt......

 

[Gadawg73]

Every poll you dont agree with is accused of bias. Nothing is true unless you believe it so.

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

 

[Jarhead]

Every poll is biased. That doesn't mean they are not true or that some of the information is not accurate.

Immie

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

That Wiscoinsin Recall poll was a true misleading farce...and I found the truth buried in it.
Bottom line....all those polled were democrats...and it actually demonstrated that the deomcreatic governor would actually LOSE 1/3 of his votes if there was a recall and only those that voted were allowed to vote.

It was a polling organization that admits it does polling for porgressive candidates and unions...and so despite the results it presented it as a positive...by saying 1 million people would petition for a recall.

Intentioanlly very misleading.

 

[Gadawg73]

They aren't "fixed" if that's what you mean. Polling organizations have their reputations to protect, like any other business, and they'd soon be closing up shop if they started fixing polls to attract people to a particular agenda.

Bias can be unintentional in polling.
It is how the questions are offered and worded.

That Wiscoinsin Recall poll was a true misleading farce...and I found the truth buried in it.
Bottom line....all those polled were democrats...and it actually demonstrated that the deomcreatic governor would actually LOSE 1/3 of his votes if there was a recall and only those that voted were allowed to vote.

It was a polling organization that admits it does polling for porgressive candidates and unions...and so despite the results it presented it as a positive...by saying 1 million people would petition for a recall.

Intentioanlly very misleading.

And intentional as well. I agree.
Both sides do it.