Oregon Tax Rich Vote Counters Massachusetts For Bush Vote!

[mascale]

So as special elections go, as opposed to the (beauty) contest in Massachusetts, the voters in Oregon went genuine Populist and voted for the more Socialist, pro-public services, pro-education, pro-pay-as-you-go kind of agenda--as opposed to the FOXTV-Fantasize-As-You-Go agenda. The rich will be asked to pay their fair-share of the state's pro-humanity agenda.

Tax measures pass - Portland Business Journal:

Business is clearly wrong, and bad!

Now there is compare and contrast in the elections of January. Like the fellow elected in Massachusetts, Bush was of the National Guard, or at least asleep and/or AWOL about it. Bush failed completely to understand the role of intelligence-gathering, the advance-scouts in the field, and even failed completely, to find out really--if anyone was paying any taxes in the first place! And then there was the Vice-President choice, of Cheney!

In contrast, The Democrats know that millions now have no income-tax liability at all, and so cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is not even near to the simplicity that the clearly mis-guided, Massachusetts Senator-Elect was touting. The Massachusetts Senator-Elect was actually supporting what Bush did. The concept was to lie to Massachusetts, just like Reagan--the "budget-balancing," promiser: That all persons with earned incomes in America have a federal income tax liablity. The Senator-Elect had another, Fantasize-As-You-Go role model. Both the Senator-Elect and Ronald Reagan would make their promises, over-and-over-and-over-and-over again! FOXTV is in fact a lot like them!

And so Oregon put the brakes on any semblance of a FOXTV revival in America. The People of Oregon will actually pay for what they get, as opposed to the liars who refused to do that, big-time, again-and-again! In fact, the Real Populists, would be said, apparently, the Populist, Democratic Party leaning, pro-government activist, promise-keepers of the United States.

Then there are the others!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Half-Wit Father in Washington: Know About Others(?)!)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow... let's see how that works for Oregon.

Prediction - all that will remain will be the usual cast of leaches and anarchists.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Democrats know that millions now have no income-tax liability at all

Funny... you probably don't realize this, but this statement alone counters half of what you are espousing.

 

[Oldandtired]

Why is it that "tax cuts" to those that create jobs is always spun as tax cuts to the rich.
Look around us...people like to start new business...AND LIKE TO GROW THEM.
WHy is there any argument that putting more money in the pockets of those that like to grow their business is nothing more than making it easier for the rich?

The spin of basic logic...and the continued spewing of such spin is disturbing.

quite simple...taking from those that need money to create jobs and giving it to those that do not create jobs will NOT create jobs.

When those that do NOT create jobs get that money, they will buy what is most cost effective for them...and with the increase on taxes to those that DO create jobs, their products and services willbe less cost competative than those imported.

Prove me wrong...and not with some link to an MSNBC blog.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nothing says 'grow the economy" like sending a welfare recipient/progressive/liberal $600!!!!!!

 

[mascale]

When any business puts money into costs--that tend to increase the business--then no income taxes are levied on that money. To avoid the taxes, the business creates the expansionary costs. Presumably the business increases output: And so how does that get purchased.

When people who need to buy things, actually have the money: Then the business that makes things has a market to sell. One way to provide the money is with the tax cut to the likely spenders. Since that has been doing on since the 1986 U. S. Federal Income Tax reform, then people with no further liability for U. S. Federal Income Taxes any more need a refundable credit.

"quite simple...taking from those that need money to create jobs and giving it to those that do not create jobs will NOT create jobs."

That doesn't happen with a tax increase. See Accountant(?)!

"When those that do NOT create jobs get that money, they will buy what is most cost effective for them"

"Aha! Said the blind man, who picked up his hammer and saw(?)!'

Little kids know this stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Half-Wit Father In Washington: Get many squaws! Make Bigger Garden! Even Make Sense(?)!)

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Why is it that "tax cuts" to those that create jobs is always spun as tax cuts to the rich.

Because they didn't create any jobs! In fact, the opposite happened. This country hemhorraged jobs the past decade like it had hemophilia.

 

[Oldandtired]

When any business puts money into costs--that tend to increase the business--then no income taxes are levied on that money. To avoid the taxes, the business creates the expansionary costs. Presumably the business increases output: And so how does that get purchased.

When people who need to buy things, actually have the money: Then the business that makes things has a market to sell. One way to provide the money is with the tax cut to the likely spenders. Since that has been doing on since the 1986 U. S. Federal Income Tax reform, then people with no further liability for U. S. Federal Income Taxes any more need a refundable credit.

"quite simple...taking from those that need money to create jobs and giving it to those that do not create jobs will NOT create jobs."

That doesn't happen with a tax increase. See Accountant(?)!

"When those that do NOT create jobs get that money, they will buy what is most cost effective for them"

"Aha! Said the blind man, who picked up his hammer and saw(?)!'

Little kids know this stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Half-Wit Father In Washington: Get many squaws! Make Bigger Garden! Even Make Sense(?)!)

You took a simple "post" and disected it.
I could have...and I guess for people like you...should have gone into things syuch as statatorry costs of employees......costs of payroll, etc.....but I never thought someone would disect a simple explanation.

Either you dont want to get it or you simply wanted to show how much you know even though it is not applicable...

Whatever it is, nice try...but as a business owner, I can tell you one thing....you make business decisions based on what "the book" tells you, you will go out of business.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

The rich will be asked to pay their fair-share of the state's pro-humanity agenda.

LOL, that's a hoot.

First off, "fair share"? Really? Finally, "asked"? Try "stolen from".

-TSO

 

[Luissa]

Nothing says 'grow the economy" like sending a welfare recipient/progressive/liberal $600!!!!!!

YOu are a total moron, and partisan hack!

 

[Oldandtired]

Nothing says 'grow the economy" like sending a welfare recipient/progressive/liberal $600!!!!!!

YOu are a total moron, and partisan hack!

well...seeing as Bush tried it a year earlier and it failed....exactly what did Obama think would happen the second time around?

Oh yeah...I forgot.....and I paraphrase for affect...

"Vote for my opponenet, John McCain and you will get another 4 years of Bush policies. VOte for me and I will implement one of Bush's policies, and send you a check"

So I guess if he was a msart man then he knew the extra 500 bucks would do squat for the economy seeing as it did squat for the exonomy 12 months earlier....so what was his goal?

Buying votes with taxpayer money?

Gee.....think about it....

"we are in the worst economy since the great depression. Vote for me and 95% of you will get a check in the mail to help put food on the table"...."Oh yeah.....and where will that money come from? It will come from those evil rich greedy business owners.....and you can thank me for taking it from them"

Jeez....what has politics become

 

[Luissa]

Nothing says 'grow the economy" like sending a welfare recipient/progressive/liberal $600!!!!!!

YOu are a total moron, and partisan hack!

well...seeing as Bush tried it a year earlier and it failed....exactly what did Obama think would happen the second time around?

Oh yeah...I forgot.....and I paraphrase for affect...

"Vote for my opponenet, John McCain and you will get another 4 years of Bush policies. VOte for me and I will implement one of Bush's policies, and send you a check"

So I guess if he was a msart man then he knew the extra 500 bucks would do squat for the economy seeing as it did squat for the exonomy 12 months earlier....so what was his goal?

Buying votes with taxpayer money?

Gee.....think about it....

"we are in the worst economy since the great depression. Vote for me and 95% of you will get a check in the mail to help put food on the table"...."Oh yeah.....and where will that money come from? It will come from those evil rich greedy business owners.....and you can thank me for taking it from them"

Jeez....what has politics become

Don't know where you were trying to go with that, but even conservatives agree that one of the best ways to stimulate economy, with the best return is through food stamps.

 

[Oldandtired]

YOu are a total moron, and partisan hack!

well...seeing as Bush tried it a year earlier and it failed....exactly what did Obama think would happen the second time around?

Oh yeah...I forgot.....and I paraphrase for affect...

"Vote for my opponenet, John McCain and you will get another 4 years of Bush policies. VOte for me and I will implement one of Bush's policies, and send you a check"

So I guess if he was a msart man then he knew the extra 500 bucks would do squat for the economy seeing as it did squat for the exonomy 12 months earlier....so what was his goal?

Buying votes with taxpayer money?

Gee.....think about it....

"we are in the worst economy since the great depression. Vote for me and 95% of you will get a check in the mail to help put food on the table"...."Oh yeah.....and where will that money come from? It will come from those evil rich greedy business owners.....and you can thank me for taking it from them"

Jeez....what has politics become

Don't know where you were trying to go with that, but even conservatives agree that one of the best ways to stimulate economy, with the best return is through food stamps.

Hey...food stamps?
I am 100% for food stamps. It is my responsibility as an American Citizen to ensure people have food to eat.....and I have no issue with food stamps (with proper regulation)

Obama and Bush simply gave people cash. It did not work when Bush did it and it did not work when Obama did it.

Still trying to figure out why Obama did it when he saw it failed with Bush...but seeing as one of his campaign mantras was "elect me and 95% of you will get a chekc in the mail"...yes...paraphrased....it seems to me he may have indirectly attrempted to buy votes.

But I digress......

Food stamps? DId not know he was referring to food stamps. CHildren in the US are hungry....many starving...take my money and feed them.....I am 100% oin board. I prefer that over takingt my money to build a golf course in Nevada.

Unfortunately, Reid preferred my money go to the building of a golf course.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Don't know where you were trying to go with that, but even conservatives agree that one of the best ways to stimulate economy, with the best return is through food stamps.

I have to admit, when I read your post, I had to hit teh internets so I could provide backup to call bullshit on this claim. I must say, I was shocked to find out that you are absolutely correct, and that i had no idea.

link

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.
EMAIL | PRINT | DIGG | RSS Subscribe to Economy

feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/money_news_economy.rss
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close) January 29 2008: 1:57 PM EST


Video
More video
Harvard Economist, Martin Feldstein, talks about the good, the bad and the ugly in the debate over how to kickstart the economy.
Play video

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Congress and the White House consider a $150 billion stimulus package that includes tax rebates and tax incentives for business, a report released Tuesday suggests that other methods would do a better job of infusing money into the flagging economy and doing it fast.

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.

-TSO

 

[Luissa]

well...seeing as Bush tried it a year earlier and it failed....exactly what did Obama think would happen the second time around?

Oh yeah...I forgot.....and I paraphrase for affect...

"Vote for my opponenet, John McCain and you will get another 4 years of Bush policies. VOte for me and I will implement one of Bush's policies, and send you a check"

So I guess if he was a msart man then he knew the extra 500 bucks would do squat for the economy seeing as it did squat for the exonomy 12 months earlier....so what was his goal?

Buying votes with taxpayer money?

Gee.....think about it....

"we are in the worst economy since the great depression. Vote for me and 95% of you will get a check in the mail to help put food on the table"...."Oh yeah.....and where will that money come from? It will come from those evil rich greedy business owners.....and you can thank me for taking it from them"

Jeez....what has politics become

Don't know where you were trying to go with that, but even conservatives agree that one of the best ways to stimulate economy, with the best return is through food stamps.

Hey...food stamps?
I am 100% for food stamps. It is my responsibility as an American Citizen to ensure people have food to eat.....and I have no issue with food stamps (with proper regulation)

Obama and Bush simply gave people cash. It did not work when Bush did it and it did not work when Obama did it.

Still trying to figure out why Obama did it when he saw it failed with Bush...but seeing as one of his campaign mantras was "elect me and 95% of you will get a chekc in the mail"...yes...paraphrased....it seems to me he may have indirectly attrempted to buy votes.

But I digress......

Food stamps? DId not know he was referring to food stamps. CHildren in the US are hungry....many starving...take my money and feed them.....I am 100% oin board. I prefer that over takingt my money to build a golf course in Nevada.

Unfortunately, Reid preferred my money go to the building of a golf course.

I am a single mother, and I don't remember getting a check while Obama has been President. Is that what you are refering to? I did get a check while Bush was President, and I paid off my college loans from when I was younger and was able to go back to school. If you are refering to the $1,000 tax credit, that will help out middle class people more than the poor in my opinion. Other than that, the only people I remember getting money under Obama were the banks, and other businesses. Here in Washington State, we were able to put more money into cleaning up what some people consider the most polluted sites in America.

 

[mascale]

Anyone guesses that Oldandtired--and stupid--poster, who posted, "Prove Me Wrong. . .," and then goes on to express alarm at the posted reply: Was creating a fantasy, in the original post, that somehow the question, that oldandtired posted, made sense on its face, that expressed some nature of "truth."

It did not. The question asked required a semblance of pay-as-you-go real basis in the rules. Pay-as-you-go, real basis in the rules, is clearly despised by families supportive of Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, George Bush II, Dick Cheney, Senator Elect Scott Brown, et al. Those are the families of Fantasize-Along-With-FOXTV.

So the voters in Oregon took the more liberal, Socialist, humanitarian tack--just like mainland China wants the United States to do--and opted to find the money that would easily and painlessly keep the state running, without foisting it off on future generations, or the future generations of other people's nations. Socialist, in that manner, it was.

"Why is it that tax cuts to those that create jobs is always spun as tax cuts for the rich?" is in the original post of oldandtired poster. That is not what the OP is about, and that is never even in any statute. Income tax Statutes raise or lower taxes, or tax rates, on businesses and individuals, punto. There is no such thing, in any statute, as a "tax on those that create jobs." There are, however, tax rates in the statutes that are based on income levels. Democratic Party tax cuts tend, in fact, to reward job creation. Republican Party Tax Cuts, like proposed in the subject Massachusetts election, tend to focus on the tax rates that businesses and individuals pay. Senator-Elect Scott Brown proposed a tax rate cut, across-the-board: As the unions used to promote it. Those are Tax rates that are assessed based on income amounts. The rich are generally included at the upper income amounts.

The original question posted: Was likely based on some nature of Fantasize-Along-With-FOXTV kind of rant. There is clearly no basis for it, in any statute!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Hmmm. Oldandtired need statute--then need pigeons(?)--in new dialect!)

 

[Luissa]

Don't know where you were trying to go with that, but even conservatives agree that one of the best ways to stimulate economy, with the best return is through food stamps.

I have to admit, when I read your post, I had to hit teh internets so I could provide backup to call bullshit on this claim. I must say, I was shocked to find out that you are absolutely correct, and that i had no idea.

link

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.
EMAIL | PRINT | DIGG | RSS Subscribe to Economy

feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/money_news_economy.rss
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close) January 29 2008: 1:57 PM EST


Video
More video
Harvard Economist, Martin Feldstein, talks about the good, the bad and the ugly in the debate over how to kickstart the economy.
Play video

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Congress and the White House consider a $150 billion stimulus package that includes tax rebates and tax incentives for business, a report released Tuesday suggests that other methods would do a better job of infusing money into the flagging economy and doing it fast.

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.

-TSO

I heard about it a year ago, and if you notice with more and more people on food stamps places like Cosco are taking them now for business purposes. You would be surprised the people I see with Food Stamp cards now.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

I heard about it a year ago, and if you notice with more and more people on food stamps places like Cosco are taking them now for business purposes. You would be surprised the people I see with Food Stamp cards now.

Something about that bothers me. It cost 100 bucks for a Costco membership. To me it sounds like the idea of Whole Foods accepting them.

-TSO

 

[Claudette]

Wow... let's see how that works for Oregon.

Prediction - all that will remain will be the usual cast of leaches and anarchists.

Gotta agree. Lets see where Oregon is next year when all those taxed "Rich" people don't hire and don't expand their businesses. Wonder if the folks on Govt Assistance will pick up that slack???

 

[Luissa]

I heard about it a year ago, and if you notice with more and more people on food stamps places like Cosco are taking them now for business purposes. You would be surprised the people I see with Food Stamp cards now.

Something about that bothers me. It cost 100 bucks for a Costco membership. To me it sounds like the idea of Whole Foods accepting them.

-TSO

$100?
I have only ever paid $30, of course I signed up at the booth they have at school in the SUB. I think they are lowering the fee for certain members, I will have to do some research.