Oregon Tax Rich Vote Counters Massachusetts For Bush Vote!

[TheSuaveOne]

Besides the fee, the other thing is, as a member myself, I always spend more than i would have if I would have shopped at the local Jewel/Osco. I mean how can I pass up on 100 dozen cookie package, 1000 rolls of toilet paer or a 55 gallon drum of peanut butter.

-TSO

 

[mascale]

Since 1931, the Minimum Tax of Oregon Corporations has been $10.00. Now it is $150.00, for about 24,000 of the state's 34,000: Business Corporations!

Oregon voters pass Measures 66 and 67 easily

On this basis, there are posters in this thread who are claiming that all of Oregon will be unemployed as a consquence!

This is called, "Fantasize-Along-With-FoxTV!" That is recently being discovered to be, in fact: Some new nature of Social Disease!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Fantasize-Along-With-FOXTV-posters need many blankets. . . .Smallpox infected!)

 

[Skull Pilot]

I want to dedicate a song to Oregon

[youtube]0NHbOqmNVm8[/youtube]

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

You have been receiving about 13 bucks a week more in your take home.
Unless, fo course, you were earning more than 150K as a single mom.

 

[Oldandtired]

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!)

Please...continue with the insults....it does wonders for your credibility.

And the "Fantasize-Along-With-FOXTV" certainly enhances it even more.

But that being siad, I will no longer respond to you in this debate as I do not respond to those that fall back on insults when they disagree with my sentiments.

 

[mascale]

Oldandtired poster has apparently nothing further to contribute! Who would have guessed that, from reading this below--posted above:

"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..."

Apparently mascale is better at the matter of posting than is Oldandtired poster, including at posting the "like-in-kind" type of response!

See again how Oldandtired poster made the semblance of a reply, herein cited!

Anyone see the "Fantasize-Along-With-FoxTV," kind of influence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(It noted time and again that even Her Majesty's Socialist PM: Tried at Davos last year to explain to the assembled former colonies--Just exactly how credit is supposed to work--the Socialist version now at work in The Empire(?), and in mainland China! The unregulated version is now of history!)

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Wow, that is interesting. I didn't think that was the case at all.

 

[mascale]

Getting people spending immediately is what a stimulus is all about. Immediate employment is also a standard. That standard was set by FDR with the CCC. He was in office in March, and by summer he had 225,000 at work doing environmental things--as that was understood at the time.

The current stimulus will likely, eventually, be shown "preservative" by comparison. School districts, state and local governments had no money coming in. The federal money came rolling in, and then there was money for the federal contractors, even advertised at FedBizzOpps.

FedBizzOpps money takes a lot of time to get into the hands, even of the bidding contractors, and in fact that was known at the outset. This year starts a lot of the actual money in the field from the "stimulus," which was not "TARP," which was really not even "Cash For Clunkers,' and how that worked.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Essentially, Obama was in office in January, and by mid-summer there really was actually: Junk in abundance, suddenly everywhere! The Ivy League does that to people!)

 

[Oldandtired]

Oldandtired poster has apparently nothing further to contribute! Who would have guessed that, from reading this below--posted above:

"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..."

Apparently mascale is better at the matter of posting than is Oldandtired poster, including at posting the "like-in-kind" type of response!

See again how Oldandtired poster made the semblance of a reply, herein cited!

Anyone see the "Fantasize-Along-With-FoxTV," kind of influence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(It noted time and again that even Her Majesty's Socialist PM: Tried at Davos last year to explain to the assembled former colonies--Just exactly how credit is supposed to work--the Socialist version now at work in The Empire(?), and in mainland China! The unregulated version is now of history!)

I actually like your posts. Well written....entertaining (although I do not necessarily agree with you), and written in a way where I actually read and enjoy the entire post.
I am not being sarcastic. You are an excellent writer.....articualte and intriguing.
Just wish you wouldnt be so much on the attack. I am proud of who I am and to be quite frank, I do have the time to put a lot of thought into my posts....so I guess I deserve what you give me.....but that being said, I believe you and I could enjoy a great debate...if I did not have people knocking on my door every 2 minutes.

 

[mascale]

This below is from The Atlantic website:

Oregon does green things, and Emerald Things, and Donald Duck appears often at one of their state universities. That was the one for me!

Jan 27 2010, 11:06 am by Derek Thompson

"The Lessons of Oregon's Vote to Tax the Rich
Oregon voters approved by a wide margin new taxes on wealthy families and corporations. For two decades, Oregon voters had mimicked California, freezing property taxes, rejecting sales taxes and demanding that any surpluses go back to the people in the form of rebates. No more! The two measures will raise income taxes for households making more than $250,000 a year and raise the state's corporate income tax.

Naturally, Washington will be looking for national implications of this vote -- especially since conservative pundits greeted the Massachusetts upset like a deus ex machina. I have two observations.

The first observation is that direct democracy is an incredibly poor way to run a state. Oregon and California's experiments in initiatives and referenda have done nothing more than reveal that their voters love services and hate taxes."

The Stuff below is Stupid!

"Imagine you're an Oregonian on the day of a sales tax referendum vote. You wake up, go downstairs and flip through your credit card bills while you brew the coffee. You wake up your kids, remember that you forgot to pay the tutors last month, and drive them to their fine, but admittedly mediocre public school. Then you pull onto the highway to head to work. The engine light turns on, dammit. You reach the office, toil through Excel for three hours (you really ought to be paid more for this, you remind yourself) and at noon you pass the Subway where you usually buy a cheap sandwich to save money to vote on the sales tax. You remember that there's a deep budget deficit and that something will to be done in a distant place called tomorrow. But tomorrow is tomorrow, and you need money for the credit cards, and the tutors, and the public school donations, and the engine, and the money you're not making on the job -- you need that money today. So you vote NO to all the tax increases and service cuts -- as you always have and almost always will.

"I'm not saying this guy is wrong or stupid. I'm saying this guy is why we need representatives to make tough budget decisions for us." That stuff was stupid!

"The second observation is that I think this vote has nothing to do with Left or Right. It has to do with money and anger. With double-digit unemployment, eight-digit Wall Street bonuses and thirteen-digit federal deficits, Americans are feeling inundated with a lot of numbers that tell a simple story: America's workers have no money, America's coffers have no money, but America's rich people have a lot of money. Neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on populism, and it seems to me that Obama needs to show America tonight that he feels the anger. If we're lucky, we might even see it. It's not entirely clear to me how the White House loses by taking on the banks more aggressively in the next few months to build back political mojo. Separate from whether or not it is good financial policy, a plan that says 'I'm taxing the banks who created this mess and I'm funneling that money into jobs programs to help average Americans pay their mortgage' is pretty safe politics."

Other people say and do and write "stupid."

Not much relative discussion has been noticed about the impact of the Oregon election, however. The stock market finally went up a lot today, after the Oregon election. The President of the United States will be delivering, apparently, a major, national network address: Now that the election has happened. The Sun came out in Southern California, now that the election results are known!

None of that so far is widely public, on the newscasts, anywhere!

You'd almost have to believe: That the deities of the heavens are engaged in silent meditation, of the glorius celebration of the outcome!

Unless they're all colored!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(Great Entrepreneurial Spirit, of Reagan Trajectory: Not Even Light-Skinned Colored--Hmmm, Even with snappy, Writers Guild, dialect to boot!)

 

[Oldandtired]

Got it.
Now I understand what you are all about.
Thanks!

 

[mascale]

The real Doom Coffin makes better sense than a Pro Wrestling owneress(?) running for political office in one of the Eastern Seaboard small states.

She probably can't even see Vladimir from the front porch!

The "Doom Coffin" is the high school geometry rectangle, conceptualized as being a "box" full of credit. Credit is the source of personal income, and a raise in personal income can be drawn in as a left-right diagonal, from the bottom to the top. It is a fixed percentage kind of raise. The credit that pays the raises is on the left side of the diagonal. The credit that creates the procurements that support the raises are on the right side of the diagonal.

The problem is the Pythagorean Theorem. Liberal Christians would find the example in Matthew 25::14-30, except that. . . , well, millions know how they are. The original "income scale" of talents is five units long. It gets doubled, so there is a five unit raise at the top. The Pythagorean Theorem applies. The thing don't work. The Servant with the one talent gets cast out. The household should have been enriched 8 talents, but was only enriched The square root of a squared, plus the square root of b squared, about 7 talents.

True Liberals would say it. It was, after all, Israel, and hey! It computes close enough.

So with all the credit, and all the income, the bankers keep on lending: Even outside the box. In a fifth quadrant, there is not personal income, balancing that credit. A kind of "collapse point" is reached, wherein the odds of a return--economy-wide--on investments: Starts to diminish from usual.

For now, the United States has about $12.0 tril. personal income. The Total U. S. Credit market is about $55.0 tril. All of a sudden the failed bankers don't want to lend what they have!

Enter the Socialists! No wonder they failed! Any economy wherein the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Doesn't work! The poor were unable to pay on the mortgages. The rich houses all came tumbling down! Before that, it was the old Soviet Block, Argentina, Japan, Indonesia, and probably others.

The schools, including where the Duck is located: Won't even let that explanation be presented. Nobel Laureate, Elinor Ostrom, even has the prize, from the Department that started that: 35 years ago. I myself am the other one with the same name, that she knows about. I'm the one who doesn't have the doctorate: Even now!

Anyone can guess that!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Teachers keep law. Know that Not Have to send all wampum to Haiti: For Colored People! Law Allows That! Many Know!)

 

[Maple]

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.

I am a conservative and I most certainly do not think that. Trickle down works. Across the board tax cuts work. It allows people to KEEP more of their money to buy, invest and save. When you have that going on, it creates DEMAND for goods in the PRIVATE SECTOR and BUSINESS has to HIRE to keep up with the DEMAND. It's that simple and it has always WORKED in the past.

Government is the CONSUMER of wealth, they produce nothing that you can purchase, therefore the ONLY revenue that they take in is from the taxpayer. Private sector business CREATES wealth, employs most Americans who pay taxes that the government takes in as revenue, and distributes.

The government is distributing money it has not yet collected, 15 million people are unemployed, business's have closed, therefore the government revenues are depleted and they are borrowing .50 on every dollar spent from China.

Government has not tightened it's belt as have most Americans, they are still running up their credit cards with your signature and every other American's signature on it for generations to come. You as a taxpayer have co-signed the loan and are going to be held fully-responsible for re-payment.

 

[Toro]

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.

Much if not most of the money from the tax rebate checks went to paying down debt. Essentially, it was a transference of debt from the private to the public sector.





For the record, low tax rates for business generally produces more jobs.

 

[Toro]

Government is the CONSUMER of wealth, they produce nothing that you can purchase, therefore the ONLY revenue that they take in is from the taxpayer. Private sector business CREATES wealth, employs most Americans who pay taxes that the government takes in as revenue, and distributes.

The market creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time. It does not create all the wealth for all the people, all of the time.

If you truly believe that market mechanisms are always better, more efficient and more equitable than the government, and the government always fails, then please put forward your argument why the police, the armed forces and the fire departments should all be private.

When there is market failure, when there is an inefficient distribution of information or when there is uncertainty regarding prospective returns, the government does a better jobs of providing the service than the private market, either through manufacturing and distribution, or more likely, through funding.

Virtually every road in private communities and almost all main highways in the country are funded by the government because the initial costs and subsequent charges required to make such a road profitable discourages investment in residential structures. Governments fund education because many people could not afford education, and society deems a critical mass of highly uneducated people a negative that detracts from social network.

 

[mascale]

So in the general context of, "Fantasize Along With FOXTV," What hath the diet(ress(es)) wrought?

Senator George McGovern had proposed a $1000.00 plan for every man, woman, and child: Against the backdrop of Nixon's fixed percentage guidelines backdrop. Gerald Ford would eventually, actually (WIN)--as in Whip Inflation Now(?)--and $50.00 equal dollar amount rebates, like the McGovern Method, would be in the mail. Alabama Teachers had already received a $1000.00 year-end, equal-amount bonus. Jerry Brown, the Governor then, and The Governor-Apparent, even now: Would raise bureaucrat pay an equal-amount. Like in the Matthew 20::1-16 original plan: Mostly everyone was really pissed off!

Reagan would later on, create the procurement deficits. The liberals in Congress would raise and index the personal exemptions, and standard deduction, in the 1986 federal income tax reform.

So millions started leaving the Income Tax rolls behind. There would be no further income tax liability, at certain statutory levels. The Clinton Administration would add-in the $500.00 equal-dollar per child income tax credit. The Obama Administration will build on that this year.

Bush came into office having been taught that, "you do income tax cuts to create a stimulus in a recession." Anyone knows that Bush was from Yale University, and so like those families all intend--he had missed out on a lot of information that was widely available. Millions were no longer on the income tax rolls. The Tax cut wouldn't work.

In fact, it didn't. The Bush II, Term I Administration tried it twice, at least. There was no stimulus. Millions who would have been expected to suddenly buy things: Got no tax cut. They no longer had federal income tax liability.

And So Senator-Elect, Scott Brown did propose the Conservative Plan. John Kennnedy had low-income taxpayers to relieve. George Bush had no such taxpayers to relieve. Senator Elect Brown is every bit as Conservative as is now former President Bush II, Terms I and II. He has no concept of current events, or information: Widelly and publically available.

Next, it's on to the phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction, which all true Conservatives believe in fervently--since it killed, dismembered, disfigured, maimed, mutililated, butchered, impaled, and even blew U. S. troops to bits, without basis.

General Betrayus now even has the Taliban on the rise in nuclear Pakistan--which is an intended outcome of every U. S. Conservative's beliefs: Certainly currently alive. That too, is the kinds of families that they are! When The Taliban get infiltrated by Al Qaeda, when they are a part of the Pakistani government: Then the Conservatives will know what they intended for America, all along!

Bin laden seems able, apparently, even to get his people infiltrated on the planes, and in Yemen, of all places, to infiltrate! What the Conservatives seem to know about bin laden for certain, because of them. He does have free range to roam the planet, with Betrayus in charge--with Conservative Republican support!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not stirred!"
(Betrayus not infiltrate Garden of Great Half-Wit Father In Washington: If Squaw there, and with nappy headed. . . .papoose people, (which is not even close(?)!)

 

[Missourian]

Attention rich folks in Oregon...please consider Missouri as your next home state.

Our taxes are fair.
Land is inexpensive.

And, while we may not have an ocean...Lake of the Ozarks has more shoreline than Oregon has Oceanfront...and the only the one of our lakes.

Check us out at visitmo.org

 

[TheSuaveOne]

General Betrayus ...

The DUmmy has spoken. *shakes head*

-TSO

 

[The Rabbi]

Since 1931, the Minimum Tax of Oregon Corporations has been $10.00. Now it is $150.00, for about 24,000 of the state's 34,000: Business Corporations!

Oregon voters pass Measures 66 and 67 easily

On this basis, there are posters in this thread who are claiming that all of Oregon will be unemployed as a consquence!

Please post which posters have claimed this. You can reference post numbers to keep it short.
In fact employers and wealth-creators will be leaving Oregon in droves. Their income tax is now a shade lower than NY.
This is the triumph of public sector unions over common sense. The unions were the prime movers of this crap.

 

[The Rabbi]

Attention rich folks in Oregon...please consider Missouri as your next home state.

Our taxes are fair.
Land is inexpensive.

And, while we may not have an ocean...Lake of the Ozarks has more shoreline than Oregon has Oceanfront...and the only the one of our lakes.

Check us out at visitmo.org

Hey wait a minute.
Tennessee has no state income tax. Nice weather. Great people. Few unions.
And we're whores for businesses looking to relocate here.