Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.
In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.
Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.
Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million or 41 percent of those filers were non-payers.
In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.
Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010 | CNSNews.com
So the solution is to take what little the poor have and make them destitute. That'll teach 'em.
Makes you wonder where they'll find a job since those "job creators" moved their jobs to China. Odd that.
Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.About that, what year did Bush increase the GOP national debt only $163 billion??About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?
And that is the point, if you are going to claim that Bush had a deficit of only $163 billion in 2007 because he borrowed $340 billion from SS, then you can't deny Clinton had a surplus because he also borrowed from SS. If you say Clinton never had a surplus because the GOP national debt went up every year, then you can't claim that Bush had a deficit of $163 billion in 2007 because the GOP national debt rose $500 billion in 2007.
Get It?
There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.About that, what year did Bush increase the GOP national debt only $163 billion??
And that is the point, if you are going to claim that Bush had a deficit of only $163 billion in 2007 because he borrowed $340 billion from SS, then you can't deny Clinton had a surplus because he also borrowed from SS. If you say Clinton never had a surplus because the GOP national debt went up every year, then you can't claim that Bush had a deficit of $163 billion in 2007 because the GOP national debt rose $500 billion in 2007.
Get It?
There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
Very deceptive use of language. First off, most married filers file joint returns, yet you use the term "people" to obscure that. Second, and more importantly, you use the term "taxes" instead of "income taxes". Even people making under $50K pay significant taxes. They'd include excise taxes on phone bills, tobacco, alcohol, tires, gasoline, etc..
According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.
In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.
Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.
Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million or 41 percent of those filers were non-payers.
In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.
Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010 | CNSNews.com
As we know, from those of you on the right, payroll taxes are not taxes, so they don't count. And the fact that lower income workers pay the bulk of taxes at the state and local levels doesn't count either. In fact, in your book, that is a good thing, because by God, we don't want the wealthy to have to give up any of their hard earned money. Taxes are only for the poor and downtrodden. Let those poor fucks suck it up. We need to cut taxes on those earning the most because they are just suffering so much.
Also, any reference to what percentage of the total tax revenues are paid by a particular group of people is meaningless and should be completely disregarded.
Federal income taxes you mean, ya brainwashed ignoramus- take all taxes and fees going to ALL gov't, and the rich and corporations pay the LOWEST percentage. Brilliant Pubcrappe, great if you want a banana republic.
Federal income taxes you mean, ya brainwashed ignoramus- take all taxes and fees going to ALL gov't, and the rich and corporations pay the LOWEST percentage. Brilliant Pubcrappe, great if you want a banana republic.
Do you have a link to any reputable site that supports this?
Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.About that, what year did Bush increase the GOP national debt only $163 billion??
And that is the point, if you are going to claim that Bush had a deficit of only $163 billion in 2007 because he borrowed $340 billion from SS, then you can't deny Clinton had a surplus because he also borrowed from SS. If you say Clinton never had a surplus because the GOP national debt went up every year, then you can't claim that Bush had a deficit of $163 billion in 2007 because the GOP national debt rose $500 billion in 2007.
Get It?
There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
No, the number of those who stopped looking for work under Bush is not equal to those who have stopped looking for work under Obama. The spin you and others of your ilk attempt to put on the Obama economy is laughable except for one thing- you and your ilk perpetuate the disinformation at the peril of us all.
link
Funny how CON$ say Bush's record debt was the result of previous (Reagan Bush I) debt, but none of Obama's debt is due to previous GOP (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) debt!!!Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
what the debt grows and the deficit for the year are 2 completely different things
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...25HmBA&usg=AFQjCNE29uEotmNcczk4G6klOWtNpgjlEA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...u8D_BA&usg=AFQjCNHlAVJebWqm5gRfaEvpflEO3d-yYQ
These are called links
And you UE figures mean nothing
Those numbers are based off of the available work force numbers which are at record lows
Its just information. Your trying to paint a picture that the 2007 budget added 500 billion to the debt
it added 163 billion, the accumulation of previous debt added the rest. Why are you trying to debate this when we are facing a deficit of 1.5 trillion every year now
you will also notice that spending from 07 to 11 went up 700 billion, really from 07 to 09 it got close
And do not waste our time with the 09 deficit was GWB. about 1/2 of it was as well as the Dems in congress including BHO owns 100% of it
Except the people who have stopped looking for work under Obama are Boomers retiring and Bush's were discouraged workers. Over 3 million Boomers a year reach retirement age and over a million retire.Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different
The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
No, the number of those who stopped looking for work under Bush is not equal to those who have stopped looking for work under Obama. The spin you and others of your ilk attempt to put on the Obama economy is laughable except for one thing- you and your ilk perpetuate the disinformation at the peril of us all.
link
I feel confident that congress will continue it's forty year trend of cutting taxes and increasing spending. In the event that congress doesn't renew the Bush capital gains tax cuts, preferential treatment of capital gains will still continue. Capital gains would be taxed at the same level as in the 1990's, one of the best economic decades of the 20th century. Long term capital gains that are now taxed at 15% would be taxed at 20%, significantly lower than the rate for ordinary income.The most common argument for taxing capital gains at a lower rate is that it promotes economic growth by encouraging savings and investment. But the evidence to support this claim is lacking and it is difficult to find any correlation between low capital-gain rates and economic performance over time. The capital-gain rate was 28 percent throughout much of the 1990sa time of strong business investment, rising productivity, and spectacular economic growth. By contrast, the capital gains and dividend tax cuts of 2003 were followed by a period of weak investment and growtheven before the recession began in 2007.ROTFL can you at least try to read? People are not going to stop investing if it means they make 850,000 instead of 1millon.
But it is odd considering that if there were less investments into capital gains in the 00's the housing might of never happened.
I see so according to you making the rich pay the same taxes as the poor is punishment. How much of a tool are you?
Yes and the Capital gains taxes proposed wouldn't hurt anyone standard of living
The only real justification for a lower tax on capital gains and dividends is too avoid double taxation since the corporation has already been taxes on the profits. However with the huge amount of loopholes in corporate taxes, even this is questionable.
In my opinion, preferred treatment of capital gains should be reserve for gains that actual lead to job growth and economic expansion such as direct investment in company expansion and startups. Possible there should be some reduction for securities purchased on the open market and real estate but there should no preferred treatment for collectibles, commodities, precious metals or foreign investments. These investments do little to promote economic expansion and job growth.
We created 7 million jobs from 03-end of 07 after 3 years of negative job growth. I would like to think tax policy had some part of that recovery. By the Obama "numbers" we are up about 2 million jobs from 02
It is in my opinion that raising that rate would only make those who invest move there money to a friendlier country, but you are correct about the different types of capital gains, that cannot be disputed
I am in the opinion also that we owe it to every person who works as well as risks that wealth the worked and paid taxes on to invest to keep there rate of tax burden as low as we can
2007 budget as a base-line
5% UE
we have a balanced budget. Job creation needs all of the help it can get right now with BHO in the way
It is also my opinion that without the tax payers coming up with 150 billion in late 2008 along with the tax policies we have in place today, we would be in a depression of world ending magnitude
Your thread is a good one, and there is much in it I agree with
Funny how CON$ say Bush's record debt was the result of previous (Reagan Bush I) debt, but none of Obama's debt is due to previous GOP (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) debt!!!Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
what the debt grows and the deficit for the year are 2 completely different things
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...25HmBA&usg=AFQjCNE29uEotmNcczk4G6klOWtNpgjlEA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...u8D_BA&usg=AFQjCNHlAVJebWqm5gRfaEvpflEO3d-yYQ
These are called links
And you UE figures mean nothing
Those numbers are based off of the available work force numbers which are at record lows
Its just information. Your trying to paint a picture that the 2007 budget added 500 billion to the debt
it added 163 billion, the accumulation of previous debt added the rest. Why are you trying to debate this when we are facing a deficit of 1.5 trillion every year now
you will also notice that spending from 07 to 11 went up 700 billion, really from 07 to 09 it got close
And do not waste our time with the 09 deficit was GWB. about 1/2 of it was as well as the Dems in congress including BHO owns 100% of it
If you back out all the GOP carryover spending during Obama's first 3 years, ( Interest on nearly 11 trillion in debt, two wasteful poorly run wars, Medicare Part D), Obama would practically be running a surplus.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
Only the terminally stupid swallow the bullshit from TownHall.Again CON$ want it both ways, the GOP national debt increased $500 billion in 2007 not $163 billion, and according to CON$ that 5% unemployment is a fraudulent BLS number and not the "REAL" unemployment number, closer to 20%. At least that is what CON$ say about the BLS for both Clinton's 3.9% UE and Obama's 8.3% UE, but miraculously BLS is suddenly accurate for Bush's 5% UE.
BTW, have you noticed how the CON$ have suddenly abandoned the Gallup unadjusted UE number recently??? Remember how CON$ said it was infinitely more accurate than Obama's "adjusted" BLS UE number?? Could it be that is because it is 8.1%???
Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Even the Right-wing Gallup has suddenly abandoned his own unadjusted UE number and started to include the BLS "adjusted" number because it is now higher!!!!
CON$ are Soooooo Predictable!!!
No, the number of those who stopped looking for work under Bush is not equal to those who have stopped looking for work under Obama. The spin you and others of your ilk attempt to put on the Obama economy is laughable except for one thing- you and your ilk perpetuate the disinformation at the peril of us all.
link
Very good info
simply put we are in the same place we where in 03 with people working
let me add
First and foremost, the real story of Obama's weak jobs performance is about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment number leaves out, or at least plays down.
And that's the 2.8 million discouraged American workers who want employment but can't find it and have given up looking. Under the BLS's perverse mathematics, these people are "not counted as in the labor force, even though they wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job in the prior 12 months," the agency said deep down in its report.
Thus, the government does not count them as among the unemployed, even though they are, well, unemployed.
If you add these 2.8 million discouraged workers, who are victims of Obama's failed economic policies, the real unemployment rate is a whopping 9.9 percent instead of the 8.3 percent the administration announced Friday.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-PyIBQ&usg=AFQjCNF4nJcJKTnuDux6ZhQr8h0zca61xA
You're the one who said 2007 added only 163 billion to the DEBT, when it added 500 billion to the DEBT.Funny how CON$ say Bush's record debt was the result of previous (Reagan Bush I) debt, but none of Obama's debt is due to previous GOP (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) debt!!!what the debt grows and the deficit for the year are 2 completely different things
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...25HmBA&usg=AFQjCNE29uEotmNcczk4G6klOWtNpgjlEA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...u8D_BA&usg=AFQjCNHlAVJebWqm5gRfaEvpflEO3d-yYQ
These are called links
And you UE figures mean nothing
Those numbers are based off of the available work force numbers which are at record lows
Its just information. Your trying to paint a picture that the 2007 budget added 500 billion to the debt
it added 163 billion, the accumulation of previous debt added the rest. Why are you trying to debate this when we are facing a deficit of 1.5 trillion every year now
you will also notice that spending from 07 to 11 went up 700 billion, really from 07 to 09 it got close
And do not waste our time with the 09 deficit was GWB. about 1/2 of it was as well as the Dems in congress including BHO owns 100% of it
If you back out all the GOP carryover spending during Obama's first 3 years, ( Interest on nearly 11 trillion in debt, two wasteful poorly run wars, Medicare Part D), Obama would practically be running a surplus.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
to start with that debt has nothing to do with the yearly deficit
your making a fool of your self DUDE
Its funny you pick the years that the Democrats where in charge of the budgets also
2007 we spent 2.7 trillion, the last GOP budget with a 163 billion dollar deficit
2008 we spent 2.9 trillion and had a 458 billion dollar deficit Dem congress, GWB
2009 we spent 3.5 trillion with a 1.4trillion dollar deficit, Dem congress, 1/2 GWB, 1/2 BHO
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...88SHBQ&usg=AFQjCNEiC7lKqTMGC-58yrbMK_J5mvGMzg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-5mVBQ&usg=AFQjCNFwPJaLwpm4iayJJ5f4F_CqJ7gRKw
stop with the spin
You're the one who said 2007 added only 163 billion to the DEBT, when it added 500 billion to the DEBT.Funny how CON$ say Bush's record debt was the result of previous (Reagan Bush I) debt, but none of Obama's debt is due to previous GOP (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) debt!!!
If you back out all the GOP carryover spending during Obama's first 3 years, ( Interest on nearly 11 trillion in debt, two wasteful poorly run wars, Medicare Part D), Obama would practically be running a surplus.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
to start with that debt has nothing to do with the yearly deficit
your making a fool of your self DUDE
Its funny you pick the years that the Democrats where in charge of the budgets also
2007 we spent 2.7 trillion, the last GOP budget with a 163 billion dollar deficit
2008 we spent 2.9 trillion and had a 458 billion dollar deficit Dem congress, GWB
2009 we spent 3.5 trillion with a 1.4trillion dollar deficit, Dem congress, 1/2 GWB, 1/2 BHO
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...88SHBQ&usg=AFQjCNEiC7lKqTMGC-58yrbMK_J5mvGMzg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-5mVBQ&usg=AFQjCNFwPJaLwpm4iayJJ5f4F_CqJ7gRKw
stop with the spin
And Bush alone owns the deficits and debt through fiscal year 2009.
But at least you abandoned your "accumulation of previous debt" rationalization once it was shown how it hurts your precious GOP the most!!!
The increase in wealth that the AAPL stock gained from the time you bought it has NOT been taxed, not now and not while it grew. It will only be taxed for the FIRST time when and if you sell it. You don't pay cap gains taxes on the dollars you bought the stock with, and you know it, so don't give me that crap that cap gains has already been taxed.You obviously never bought or sold a stock in your life or you would know that only the gains over and above what you paid for the stock is taxed, and only when the stock is sold, as I said before. That increase in stock value has never been taxed and is not taxed while it is growing. It is only taxed when "realized" AKA "sold," and then at a special lower rate.
It seems that growing tax free is not enough of a special tax privilege to satisfy the greedy, and neither is a discounted tax rate when the stock is sold, the elitist cap gains tycoons want a completely free ride and they have their GOP puppets working overtime to get them that free ride.
bought and sold close to amillion dollars last year
The wealth I use to trade stocks I got from working, that welath has been taxed once, before I ever used it to buy AAPL
Why in gods name you would make up some BS story like that is beyond me.
Fine then all of Obama's deficit spending came from debt and commitments compiled prior to 2009!You're the one who said 2007 added only 163 billion to the DEBT, when it added 500 billion to the DEBT.to start with that debt has nothing to do with the yearly deficit
your making a fool of your self DUDE
Its funny you pick the years that the Democrats where in charge of the budgets also
2007 we spent 2.7 trillion, the last GOP budget with a 163 billion dollar deficit
2008 we spent 2.9 trillion and had a 458 billion dollar deficit Dem congress, GWB
2009 we spent 3.5 trillion with a 1.4trillion dollar deficit, Dem congress, 1/2 GWB, 1/2 BHO
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...88SHBQ&usg=AFQjCNEiC7lKqTMGC-58yrbMK_J5mvGMzg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-5mVBQ&usg=AFQjCNFwPJaLwpm4iayJJ5f4F_CqJ7gRKw
stop with the spin
And Bush alone owns the deficits and debt through fiscal year 2009.
But at least you abandoned your "accumulation of previous debt" rationalization once it was shown how it hurts your precious GOP the most!!!
and that statement is true
The deficit for the year 2007 added 163 billion dollars
the rest came from debt compiled prior to 2007
2009 has part of the failed stimulus as well as 50% of tarp added to it that Obama used
GWB had nothing to do with the failed stimulus and his 1/2 of tarp we got back except AIG
Job loss also cost us 600 billion dollars in revenue
That mostly occurred after Obama took office
Look at the links dude
to be honest without the job loss and the failed stimulus we were not that bad of shape. The job loss hurt us the most that year with adding 400 billion to the budget GWB signed off on
Submitted to 110th Congress
Total revenue $2.7 trillion (requested)
$2.105 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (requested)
$3.518 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit $407 billion (requested)
$1.413 trillion (enacted)[1]
And the wage earner paid taxes on the money they spent on the goods and services the company sold that created the earnings that led to the increase in stock price, etc., etc., etc. By your moronic "logic" every dollar has been double, triple, quadruple, etc., taxed from the time it was first printed!!!The increase in wealth that the AAPL stock gained from the time you bought it has NOT been taxed, not now and not while it grew. It will only be taxed for the FIRST time when and if you sell it. You don't pay cap gains taxes on the dollars you bought the stock with, and you know it, so don't give me that crap that cap gains has already been taxed.bought and sold close to amillion dollars last year
The wealth I use to trade stocks I got from working, that welath has been taxed once, before I ever used it to buy AAPL
Why in gods name you would make up some BS story like that is beyond me.
You don't pay cap gains taxes on the dollars you bought the stock with,
He paid income taxes on the income he saved to buy the stock.
and you know it, so don't give me that crap that cap gains has already been taxed.
The company he bought stock in also paid corporate taxes on their earnings that led to the increase in the stock price that you'll now whine is taxed at too low a rate.
Get your facts straight, for once.
