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.
Not with Barry wanting to spend a trillion in cap & trade and 2 trilion on barrycare while already being a trillion and a half in hole.Only an idiot or an imbecile wants to see taxes go up in a massive recession.And maybe the Reagan tax cuts too?
bonuses-put-goldman-in-public-relations-bind: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
Ergo the OP.
Which is why they haven't raised taxes.
But raising taxes on the rich to the level they were at when Reagan was in office should to the trick.
It is long past time to repeal greed, well can't really do that, so yes, make them pay for the society that provides them the opportunity to be American Saddams.
"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."
Tax cuts spur economic growth
The rich get rich because of their merit.
What Should a Billionaire Give and What Should You?, by Peter Singer
".... The rich must or so some of us with less money like to assume suffer sleepless nights because of their ruthlessness in squeezing out competitors, firing workers, shutting down plants or whatever else they have to do to acquire their wealth. When wealthy people give away money, we can always say that they are doing it to ease their consciences or generate favorable publicity. It has been suggested by, for example, David Kirkpatrick, a senior editor at Fortune magazine that Bill Gatess turn to philanthropy was linked to the antitrust problems Microsoft had in the U.S. and the European Union. Was Gates, consciously or subconsciously, trying to improve his own image and that of his company?"
And maybe the Reagan tax cuts too?
bonuses-put-goldman-in-public-relations-bind: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance
What are you about 15 years old?
What are you being such a moron with the taking and spending of other peoples money without their consent. You need to be addressed as a 15 year old, because that is where your morals find compatibility.
Now I know you are 15.
Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....
Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.
After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.
David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....
Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.
After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.
David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Congress controlled the Spending, not Reagan.
I haven't read every post, but has some one commented on how many billions that have been spent on pork from our govertnment? Maybe we could start there and work backwards to the individual taxes.
No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.
Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.
No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.
Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.
Chris do you dare to comment on common sense, or would you rather avoid it?
In reality Reagan, Bush, and Phil Gramm are responsible for the economic collapse.
Now we have to pick up the pieces.
Will you admit that there was some fuzzy math going to attain that?Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.
Chris do you dare to comment on common sense, or would you rather avoid it?
As I said, Clinton and Gingrich raised taxes, lowered spending, and balanced the budget.
Would rather avoid paying attention to what I said?
I haven't read every post, but has some one commented on how many billions that have been spent on pork from our govertnment? Maybe we could start there and work backwards to the individual taxes.
No one disputes that there is pork, but taxes have to go up, and no one has the balls to say so.
Until the government reins in it's out of control spending, you really can't put a dollar amount on how much to tax, Chris. You don't just do tax increases on the willy nilly, because government will not clean their own house if it's done like that. I guess what I'm saying is, let's squeeze our government before we squeeze the individuals.
Spoken like a true congressman.
What state do you represent?
Be realistic. Do you think you're going to get a majority in Congress to cut Social Security benefits or decrease defense spending?
social security? never. defense spending? I think Clinton cut defense spending, but raised it again toward the end of his presidency. The defense industry is supplied by all 50 states, which means when defense gets cut, jobs get cut. Doesn't sound too politically feasible.
It's what Bush Sr. labelled Voo Doo Economics when he ran against Reagan ... he was right. Of course he embraced it once in the White House to please the wingnuts.Reagan's tax cuts for the rich created a huge increase in the National Debt. Reagan's budget director David Stockman let the cat out of the bag....
Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
The fiscal misunderstandings had ramifications. With the national debt benchmarking at $1.0 trillion in October 1981, not counting trillions in accumulating net interest carrying costs, the national debt was put on a political trajectory via the legacy of the Reagan Revolution budgets, towards the $9.1 trillion it reached by the end of 2007. The legacy of sizable budget deficits added up in the national debt and interest costs alone on the debt clicked in at $1.17 billion per day for fiscal year ending 2007; $430 billion for the year.
After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of 'being taken to the woodshed by the president' over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became disillusioned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt, which he blamed on the Reagan tax cut. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.
David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As long as there are no exceptions or deductions, especially for "charity," a very fair tax system.A flat tax? Meaning a person who earns $1,000,000 pays 10% ($100,000); and another who earns $50,000 pays 10% ($5,000)?
What do you see as the long term consequences of such a tax policy?
