So Obama just put raising taxes on the table...

[Echonova]

Shocking.:lmfao:

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer – Tue Apr 12, 8:13 am ET
WASHINGTON – Higher taxes have been missing from the fierce budget battle that nearly shut down the federal government. But President Barack Obama is about to put them on the table — at least a modest version that he had pushed before and then rested on the shelf.
Most economists and budget analysts say a comprehensive mix of spending cuts and tax increases is essential to any viable deficit-reduction plan. Yet few players in the negotiations have gone there.
It comes in the scramble to heed what is widely viewed as a loud clamor from voters to slam the brakes on runaway government spending. There has been no corresponding public demand for raising taxes. That's not surprising, but the top-bracket U.S. tax rate now is the lowest it's been in decades, and it's far lower than those in many other industrialized countries, especially in western Europe.
Tax elements of Obama's broad deficit-reduction plan, to be laid out in a speech Wednesday, seem likely to revive his earlier proposals.
The president is expected to bring back his recommendation, first made in the 2008 campaign, to end Bush-era tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 a year. He temporarily set it aside when he signed onto a late 2010 agreement with Republicans to extend all Bush tax cuts for two years.
However, he did renew the bid earlier this year in his budget for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
Any comprehensive deficit-reduction plan must include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, experts argue from both sides of the political spectrum.
"There's no alternative, and I don't know of anybody who has seriously looked at this problem who thinks there is," said William A. Galston, a White House domestic policy adviser during the Clinton administration. "You're going to need to put together tough packages of programmatic cuts and revenue increases."
With a presidential election just around the corner, and voters demanding cuts in government spending, few politicians seem eager to climb out on a higher-taxes limb.
Even Obama's bid to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans — bitterly fought by Republicans — would just take tax rates on them back to where they were in the 1990s, a decade of strong economic growth.
A sweeping Republican proposal laid down by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes trimming more than $5 trillion from deficits over the next decade, but it does so almost exclusively on the spending side of the ledger, including a drastic reshaping of Medicare and other federal safety-net entitlement programs.
The Ryan plan doesn't only fail to propose major new tax increases, it advocates lowering the top tax rates for both corporations and individuals to 25 percent from the current 35 percent.
This comes amid disclosures of low tax payments by some of the nation's biggest companies, including General Electric Co., which made $14.2 billion in worldwide profits last year, but paid no U.S. corporate taxes in 2010.
"We strongly disagree with the lack of balance in Congressman Ryan's approach," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday. "We understand that people will come to the table with different views, but the president believes that we have to have balance."
Heavy pressure from the tea party wing of the Republican Party, with its insistence on smaller government and strong opposition to new taxes, has complicated efforts by Republican leaders, especially House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, to find common ground with the White House.
Democrats aren't exactly crying out for raising taxes now either. Not with approaching national elections and a restive electorate unhappy with levels of federal spending.
Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for families making over $250,000 or individuals earning above $200,000 will be woven into the upcoming presidential election. In emphasizing it now, rather than later, Obama all but assured that outcome.
Obama also is expected to call for other changes in the tax code, which he contends benefits the rich.
"Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here," senior White House adviser David Plouffe says. "Revenues are going to have to be part of this." "Revenues" has always been Washington code for more taxes.
The bipartisan deficit-reduction commission appointed by Obama, led by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, called late last year for slashing about $4 trillion from budget deficits over the coming decade.
Roughly two-thirds of that would come through program cuts and one-third through increased taxes. Although overall tax rates would decline, dozens of popular tax breaks would be scaled back or eliminated, including the child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction and deduction claimed by employers who provide health insurance.
Obama praised the panel for its work, but embraced few of its recommendations, and none of the major ones on new taxes.
About the same time, another bipartisan panel headed by Republican Pete V. Domenici and Democrat Alice Rivlin came out with its own plan that would go even further — getting roughly half of its deficit reductions from tax increases and half from spending cuts.
Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve vice chairwoman and budget director in the Clinton administration, says there's no other way than a mix. "It cannot be all on the spending side," she said.
Panels recommending tax increases haven't fared very well. When President George W. Bush's tax-code overhaul commission, chaired by former GOP Sen. Connie Mack of Florida, recommended big cuts in the cherished home mortgage deduction and other popular tax breaks in 2005, Bush gave it a cold shoulder.
Ever since Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale famously said in 1984 that, if elected, he would reluctantly raise taxes — and promptly got clobbered in President Ronald Reagan's re-election landslide — advocating tax increases has been dangerous territory for politicians of all stripes.
Reagan's "supply side" economics, the notion that tax cuts can pay for themselves and that lower taxes mean higher revenues, remains Republican gospel. No matter that few mainstream economists totally subscribe to that theory, or that Reagan proposed tax increases in every one of his eight years in office except the first.
"It's gotten much worse since then," suggests Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush. Bartlett cited the growing influence of unrelenting anti-tax advocates like Americans for Tax Reform and some within the tea party movement.
Bartlett said he's "enough of a libertarian" to wish that the nation's budget woes could indeed be solved by spending cuts alone. "But I just don't see how that's humanly possible, giving the aging of our society, the wars we're involved in and various other things."
This year's budget deficit is expected to be a record $1.6 trillion. But that's just for one year. Added to previous years' deficits, it brings the national debt to a shade under $14.3 trillion. Annual deficits are expected to decline as the economy recovers from the worst downturn since the 1930s, but then climb again as millions of baby boomers qualify for government Social Security and Medicare benefits.

[Sneezin]

so as much as i would really like to know about this,,,,its just to much..

did you type this, or copy and paste?

[bu villain]

If you are serious about wanting to get rid of the debt, everything should be put on the table.

[Echonova]

If you are serious about wanting to get rid of the debt, everything should be put on the table.I don't disagree. However they need to be serious about cutting spending first before they try and take even more out of my check. Right now I don't believe either side is serious... It's a dog and pony show, both sides has their "pet" spending projects they are unwilling to give up, and it's easier for them to take more out of my pocket. Just so they don't have to make hard choices and risk upsetting their base of voters. Sure you'll see them hem-hawing about it on the news shows, but the deficit hasn't gone down since the 60's.


They spend it faster than we can make it. No matter if it's Democrat or Republican in control of Congress.

[-EnVus-]

I like this idea the "PCCC" Has...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/progressive-group-withold-donations-obama_n_848139.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk2|55619

[ek forever]

All the taxable income of everyone making more than $100,000/year is about $1.5 Trillion.

You could tax that at 100% and you wouldn't voter this years deficit.

Taxes are not even remotely the problem. Ancient entitlement programs, foreign military action, etc are the real source of the problem.

[Vteckidd]

Taxing the rich is just a tactic to get votes.

Truth is if you think for one second taxing the rich will translate into paying any of the deficit down is laughable. They'll take that money and use it on more social programs.

We have a SPENDING PROBLEM not a revenue problem. The problem is we make $100000 a year and spend a million. The answer isn't to spend the same. The answer is to cut spending.

[Browning151]

Taxing the "rich" will only lead to killing off small businesses. Those that can't afford the taxes will fail and those who can afford the taxes, but don't want to deal with it will simply close shop and live off the money they have already earned. Raising taxes will just slow the economy, how about the gov't live within its means, like so many Americans have had to learn to do during this recession?

[-EnVus-]

I look at it as if you make more the more you should pay back in taxes...

[BanginJimmy]

I look at it as if you make more the more you should pay back in taxes...


You already do pay more in taxes if you make more money so I dont know where you are going with this.


As already stated, revenue isnt the problem, spending is. Taxing successful people will do nothing more than drag the entire economy down while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit.


Why is it that liberals care nothing about bringing the "less fortunate" up, but instead focus on bringing successful people down? I can say for a fact that most tax payers would gladly pay their taxes for these entitlement programs if these programs actually did something to help people rise above them. If welfare programs actually helped people learn the skills they need to become self sufficient instead of providing an unending handout for doing nothing, maybe we would see people actually try to get off the govt tit. But no, that will never happen because too many politicians, of both major parties, would rather do the things that will get them re-elected instead of the things that benefit the country as a whole.

[-EnVus-]

You already do pay more in taxes if you make more money so I dont know where you are going with this.


As already stated, revenue isnt the problem, spending is. Taxing successful people will do nothing more than drag the entire economy down while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit.


Why is it that liberals care nothing about bringing the "less fortunate" up, but instead focus on bringing successful people down? I can say for a fact that most tax payers would gladly pay their taxes for these entitlement programs if these programs actually did something to help people rise above them. If welfare programs actually helped people learn the skills they need to become self sufficient instead of providing an unending handout for doing nothing, maybe we would see people actually try to get off the govt tit. But no, that will never happen because too many politicians, of both major parties, would rather do the things that will get them re-elected instead of the things that benefit the country as a whole.
If it comes down to them choosing to cut Medicare,Medicaid or Social Security benefits then im willing to pay more taxes. Just don't touch those things that so many people rely on...

[GlennsEK]

I agree with that^^^

[.blank cd]

You already do pay more in taxes if you make more money so I dont know where you are going with this.


As already stated, revenue isnt the problem, spending is. Taxing successful people will do nothing more than drag the entire economy down while doing absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit.

Taxing successful people definitely wont drag the economy down. I dont know why people, especially here, automatically think that all "successful" people own businesses or provide employment, or that successful business owners who do provide employment think that their PERSONAL income and their business income are one in the same, or that all people that make over $250k a year are "successful". They're not.

[Vteckidd]

If it comes down to them choosing to cut Medicare,Medicaid or Social Security benefits then im willing to pay more taxes. Just don't touch those things that so many people rely on...

I think the highest tax rate people pay right now for FED is 35% (someone correct me if i am wrong). By the time you add in state, some people (if you live in New York) are paying close to 45% in taxes. That means almost HALF of what they MAKE goes to taxes.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pays NOTHING IN TAXES. ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, DONUT HOLE , ETC.

So imo the "rich" pay their "fair share" already. Its easy when you make $30,000 a year to point the finger at the guy making $30,000 bonuses and saying "OOOOOO you evil rich person you you need to pay more".

The fact of the matter is that if you are not willing to cut social programs, you better have a better idea than taxing the rich to bring the deficit down. What part of WE CANT AFFORD IT do people just not get. We are long past the point of "we cant afford it, but im not willing to cut this just yet".

History has show us you increase tax revenues by actually CUTTING taxes. A job created pays more in taxes to the Feds than taxing the existing "rich" people. When you cut taxes, you grow the economy, and you fill more people into the employment system who then pay more in taxes. SO why not focus on getting the guy making $20,000 a year to get him to making $60,000 a year, so he will pay more in taxes?

The mantra isnt going to work this time, we are long past the class warfare arguments

[Vteckidd]

And lets say we actually go ahead and raise taxes on the rich. DO ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY THINK THE THE EXTRA MONEY (if there is any) ACCUMULATED WILL ACTUALLY GO TOWARD PAYING THE DEFICIT DOWN?

IMO even i we let him go ahead and tax the rich at %50-65 there is no way that "extra" revenue will ever get put towards the deficit, thats just foolish thinking

[.blank cd]

Hmm must not be a bad idea after all...

That or theres a bunch of dumbass millionaires out there....

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

[BanginJimmy]

If it comes down to them choosing to cut Medicare,Medicaid or Social Security benefits then im willing to pay more taxes. Just don't touch those things that so many people rely on...

You and the top 1% of income earners combined don't make about money if the govt takes 100% of all income to pay for those programs.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[GlennsEK]

It seems like the new taxes will only hurt the little guy aka(lower class men) and nothing with change with the muti-billion getting tax breaks

[Browning151]

Hmm must not be a bad idea after all...

That or theres a bunch of dumbass millionaires out there....

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

lmao, I would have to go with the dumbass millionaire statement. What a sham, if these people actually want to help the country and pay their "fair share" they are free to do so at any time and write a check for as much money as they would like to help reduce the debt.....Treasury Direct (http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance)



How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

So if these "patriotic" millionaires really want to help reduce debt they already have a way to do it, and they can put in whatever amount they'd like.

[bu villain]

I think the highest tax rate people pay right now for FED is 35% (someone correct me if i am wrong). By the time you add in state, some people (if you live in New York) are paying close to 45% in taxes. That means almost HALF of what they MAKE goes to taxes.

This is not true. We have a progressive tax system and a huge number of tax breaks/credits so someone who is in the 35% bracket pretty much never pays anywhere near 35% of their income in taxes. I was in the 25% bracket last year and my effective federal income tax rate was around 9%. Current federal income tax rates are near the lowest in America's history and that's a fact.



Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pays NOTHING IN TAXES. ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO, DONUT HOLE , ETC.

So imo the "rich" pay their "fair share" already. Its easy when you make $30,000 a year to point the finger at the guy making $30,000 bonuses and saying "OOOOOO you evil rich person you you need to pay more".

Saying the bottom 50% pay nothing in taxes needs a very important clarification. They may pay no INCOME TAX but they certainly pay a lot of other taxes (e.g., sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax). Many of those people who you say pay no tax actually pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.

When people say the rich need to pay their fair share, it has nothing to do with being evil rich people. It has to do with paying a more equal percentage of all taxes compared to their income. Ask Warren Buffett, he agrees rich people should be paying more.


History has show us you increase tax revenues by actually CUTTING taxes. A job created pays more in taxes to the Feds than taxing the existing "rich" people. When you cut taxes, you grow the economy, and you fill more people into the employment system who then pay more in taxes. SO why not focus on getting the guy making $20,000 a year to get him to making $60,000 a year, so he will pay more in taxes?


No history does not show this with any certainty. This is very much debated in the world of economists. There are so many factors that influence an economy, it is next to impossible to prove such a statement. You are passing off philosophy as fact.

[-EnVus-]

True raising taxes won't do shit to the deficit hell even cutting programs won't. It's doing something about speending millions of dollars a day just for us to be helping Libya and other countries. When i hear we use 15 tomahawk missels at $600k a pop in a day that's our tax dollars wasted... We just have to face what our government is in denial over and that is we have spent more than we have and are u shit creek now. Best thing to do right mow is raise the deficit cap cause we are not gonna scratch the surface of it the way we are thinking and wanting to do right now with the GOP and Obama at it. They only care for them selves and integrity.

[GlennsEK]

What is this country coming too...

[Browning151]

Best thing to do right mow is raise the deficit cap cause we are not gonna scratch the surface of it the way we are thinking and wanting to do right now with the GOP and Obama at it.

There's a hell of a plan, screw it just raise the debt limit and let them keep spending money like it's going out of style (which the dollar actually is) we'll just deal with it later. That seems to be working out great for us so far.

[Echonova]

I think the Government should give every American born man, woman and child $1,000,000 dollars. It would be cheaper than the last "stimulus" package and we'd all be RICH!!!! WHO'S WITH ME!!!!!!!!


~insert sarcasm~

[BanginJimmy]

Without massive cuts and reforms to the 3 major entitlement programs, SS, Medicare, medicaid, there is no amount of tax hikes and program cuts that will help. In about a decade those 3 things along with interest on our debt will cost us about what the govt brings in on a yearly basis.


The deficit problems and debt problems currently plaguing this country are the only thing Dems and GOP have worked for in a bipartisan manner over the last decade.

[.blank cd]

Without massive cuts and reforms to the 3 major entitlement programs, SS, Medicare, medicaid, there is no amount of tax hikes and program cuts that will help. In about a decade those 3 things along with interest on our debt will cost us about what the govt brings in on a yearly basis.


The deficit problems and debt problems currently plaguing this country are the only thing Dems and GOP have worked for in a bipartisan manner over the last decade.
There doesnt need to be reform to entitlement programs. How bout we stop the fake "war" going on that we're spending billions of dollars on, stop making excuses like "immediate withdrawl is dangerous" yada yada yada

problem solved

[cornercarver78]

Raising taxes = lower revenue, that's as close to a fact as you can get in economics. Spending is the problem, you can argue about where cuts need to happen, but it doesn't really matter because it will never happen anyway. Raising taxes will slow the economy more, and end up increasing the deficit in the end.

Cliffs:

taxes will keep rising (they always have been), the deficit will keep rising (it always has been), we're all screwed. Make hey while the sun shines 'cause it won't soon.

[Browning151]

There doesnt need to be reform to entitlement programs.

You've got to be joking. $60 billion+ in fraud every year and Medicare and Medicaid don't need reform? Not to mention the fact that they allow people to not be responsible and prepare themselves for the future. Didn't save enough money throughout your life to support yourself in your retirement years? No problem, here's Medicare and Social Security. What's that, still not enough money? Ok let's get you signed up for food stamps and while we're at it a free cell phone too. There's NO excuse for not being responsible and preparing for your future, NONE, it's all about personal choice and priorities.

Also read this article from CNN Money. Article (http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/21/news/economy/spending_taxes_debt/index.htm)

At the current rate by 2020 Medicare, Medicaid and SS will eat up 64% of all tax revenues, add in another 28% for interest alone on the debt and that leave only 8 cents out of every dollar of tax revenue to run the government. It's not sustainable no matter how you slice and dice it, it's just not possible.

[BanginJimmy]

There doesnt need to be reform to entitlement programs. How bout we stop the fake "war" going on that we're spending billions of dollars on, stop making excuses like "immediate withdrawl is dangerous" yada yada yada

problem solved

All of the "fake wars" you are talking about combined dont total up to the cost of medicare, medicaid, SS and interest over the last decade. In fact, I dont even think they total up to the deficits of the last decade.


Not saying I give much credence to this site, but according to their monitor, Iraq and Asscrackistan combined since 2001 are still half a trillion less than THIS YEARS DEFICIT ALONE.
http://costofwar.com/en/


another source. This one only covers iraq.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

And a third source from a conservative source.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html


Now lets look at entitlement spending. Its about bed time so I will only list medicare.

FY 2010, medicare budget was 510B, or just under half of Iraq, Asscrackistan, and Libya combined.

http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefl.html


Still think entitlements are not the problem?


Are you also one of those morons that think taxing the rich is the way to prosperity?

[.blank cd]

All of the "fake wars" you are talking about combined dont total up to the cost of medicare, medicaid, SS and interest over the last decade. In fact, I dont even think they total up to the deficits of the last decade.


Still think entitlements are not the problem?


Are you also one of those morons that think taxing the rich is the way to prosperity?

ONLY a trillion and change? Come on man, thats money that wouldnt have been spent had we not went over there.. Social insurance isnt going anywhere, so you cant really look at it the same way. It could be managed better. And as far as ending the bush tax cuts, it couldnt come any sooner. I think these multi-millionaires should be paying 90%. That wont happen. You'll say "oh so many jobs will be lost, it'll be bad for the economy". Why will jobs be lost? Because employers will cut back so as to keep their own profits up? Thus perpetuating the vicious cycle? Maybe the whole system needs to be re-vamped. maybe people need to stop looking out for their own damn pockets. But hey, capitalism's the american way right?

[-EnVus-]

Lets all jut agree we are screwed if you have $$ on plastic or in a bank you better invest in a safe or vault at home. Also its to late for us to try now we can't control the inevitable and thats what we all know. Shit just let Trump, win and at least we can go out with a laugh .....

[BanginJimmy]

ONLY a trillion and change? Come on man, thats money that wouldnt have been spent had we not went over there.. Social insurance isnt going anywhere, so you cant really look at it the same way. It could be managed better. And as far as ending the bush tax cuts, it couldnt come any sooner. I think these multi-millionaires should be paying 90%. That wont happen. You'll say "oh so many jobs will be lost, it'll be bad for the economy". Why will jobs be lost? Because employers will cut back so as to keep their own profits up? Thus perpetuating the vicious cycle? Maybe the whole system needs to be re-vamped. maybe people need to stop looking out for their own damn pockets. But hey, capitalism's the american way right?

I understand you really are jealous of people that are financially successful in their lives, but you really need to educate yourself on what these taxes will do.


And yes, only a trillion and change. Less than $150B a year combined, which is less than 10% of this years deficit.

[ek forever]

Jimmy is spot on. All those who default to ending the wars and taxing the rich have no clue the scale or scope of the federal debt and deficit projections.

All of the taxable income over $100,000 in this country is about $1.5 Trillion. Even taxing those incomes at 100% wouldn't fix the deficit problem this year.

Even a 20% increase would be a drop in the bucket.

Defense, with 3 military commitments now is about 20% of the budget, a large portion of that goes to salary, pensions, and medical care for veterans and soldiers. Only about 60% is spent on actual munitions.

If the budget and debt problem were all the water in the Earth:

Social Security is the Pacific.
Medicare/medicaid is the Atlantic
Defense is the Arctic sea
Taxing the rich is (those over $100,000) Lake Superior.
Discretionary is Lake Michigan

Before people make arguments about our budget/debt woes maybe you should take a peak at the skyrocketing cost of entitlement programs. Since WWII defense spending has been on a massive decline. The only period where defense spending curbed and paced entitlement spending was during the 1980's. Since then entitlement spending has been 2-3x what defense spending is.

Like Jimmy said, the ENTIRE military engagement in the middle east so far is about the size of this years budget deficit. The wars are peanuts.

[Vteckidd]

And as far as ending the bush tax cuts, it couldnt come any sooner. I think these multi-millionaires should be paying 90%. That wont happen. You'll say "oh so many jobs will be lost, it'll be bad for the economy". Why will jobs be lost? Because employers will cut back so as to keep their own profits up? Thus perpetuating the vicious cycle? Maybe the whole system needs to be re-vamped. maybe people need to stop looking out for their own damn pockets. But hey, capitalism's the american way right?

then go to france, or greece.

I dont mean to sound condescending, but did you just say you want to tax mulit-millionaires at 90%? are you that jealous? envious? Ok lets eliminate ALL the millionaires in the USA. Lets take all their money.

What do you think that will do to unemployment? You cant complain about the evil rich on one hand and then expect the economy to get better. Fact is THEY DO MORE FOR THE ECONOMY THAN ANYONE ELSE. How many jobs is Bill Gates responsible for? Richard Branson? Steve Jobs? Steve Forbes? Donald Trump? Lets take all their money and throw all the people they employ away.

I mean if they created their own wealth, why SHOULDNT they keep it. You think Donald Trump would keep employing his thousands of workers for $50,000 a year? No he does it cause it makes him wealthy, and he enjoys the perks with being "rich". he also donates millions of dollars to charities. Look at bill gates, he donates MILLIONS of dollars a year to charities. Where would that money come from if the govt took it all away?

The fact is our society is built to have people that get ahead, innovate, make MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. You get paid based on your talent. So if you suck at life, you dont get to own a ferrari. Some people get lucky and accumulate wealth easily, some earn it through more conventional methods, some NEVER get ahead. Thats how you have a balanced society. This utopian dream is bullshit and will never happen.

Lets say your employer lays you off tomorrow because they increase his taxes 10%. Will you be thankful then?

I just cant believe some of the unfounded idiotic statements people make. Its easy when you make $20,000 a year to look at the guy making $200,000 a year and saying "GIVE ME MORE OF WHAT YOU HAVE". Its harder to actually try and get to his level.

Which is what our society has become, a bunch of complainers and whiners

[Vteckidd]

I actually agree with what Oreilley said the other night:

In 2001 (before 9/11) our budget was 1.8 Trillion. Since then we have DOUBLED our budget and ran record deficits (under Obama) despite the almost 2 times increase in govt spending have things gotten ANY better? So why can we not go back to the 2001 budget? Things were fine then, things were going well, and i think we can all agree that despite spending 2 times the money we are not any better off than we were 10 years ago.

So fine, end the war in iraq, pull out of afghanistan, and drop libya. Then, institute a 2% sales tax on any goods or items sold. clean up the tax code , eliminate deductions that allow companies like GE to hide 14 billion dollars in profits offshores.

There, i just solved the deficit problem.

That way you can keep your entitlement programs, and we all pay more in taxes (2%) , all wars are ended, and the "evil" corporations lose any tax shelters they have. In exchange for that, i dont want to hear any bitching about 1) Unemployment 2) No excuses if we are attacked or terrorism happens 3) class warfare

Just as easy as it is to claim the "wealthy" need to pay "their fair share", why dont we ask the poor who dont pay any in taxes to also pay THEIR fair share.

[ISAtlanta300]

Its easy when you make $20,000 a year to look at the guy making $200,000 a year and saying "GIVE ME MORE OF WHAT YOU HAVE". Its harder to actually try and get to his level.

X 1000. Dude, best post in this thread.

This is all it boils down to. Everyone is starting to have the 'gimme, gimme' mentality. They would rather sit and wait for someone to give them a million than actually working to earn it.

[bu villain]

Raising taxes = lower revenue, that's as close to a fact as you can get in economics. Spending is the problem.

So I guess the government just hates revenue since they won't lower taxes. Really, it's not a fact whatsoever and it doesn't even pass the basic math test. You are saying that if taxes were at 0% and then they increased to 1%, there would somehow be a decrease in revenue? Not exactly a convincing argument.

The truth is the effect of taxes are complicated. Taxes may be a big factor in how businesses and individuals spend their money but it sure as hell isn't the only one. Theoretically there may be some perfect tax rate that produces the maximum revenue but noone is making a claim for what that number is. They simply say lower taxes = more revenue as if there is perfect inverse correlation between tax rates and revenue from 100% all the way down to 0%.

By the way, I agree with you that taxation alone would never come close to solving our budget problems.

[Vteckidd]

You're distorting the argument. Lowering taxes increases revenue because it increases taxable income and adds jobs which adds more taxpayers to the system. That's how it works.

Worked for Reagan and bush 43.

[-EnVus-]

Call me muthafukin Robin hood, cause i wanna take from the rich and give to the poor ....if you make more than you can pay more no bitching about it.
I'm not saying im rich or poor but either way id be willing to pay more if i made lots of green a year.

[.blank cd]

then go to france, or greece.

I dont mean to sound condescending, but did you just say you want to tax mulit-millionaires at 90%? are you that jealous? envious? Ok lets eliminate ALL the millionaires in the USA. Lets take all their money.

What do you think that will do to unemployment? You cant complain about the evil rich on one hand and then expect the economy to get better. Fact is THEY DO MORE FOR THE ECONOMY THAN ANYONE ELSE. How many jobs is Bill Gates responsible for? Richard Branson? Steve Jobs? Steve Forbes? Donald Trump? Lets take all their money and throw all the people they employ away.

I mean if they created their own wealth, why SHOULDNT they keep it. You think Donald Trump would keep employing his thousands of workers for $50,000 a year? No he does it cause it makes him wealthy, and he enjoys the perks with being "rich". he also donates millions of dollars to charities. Look at bill gates, he donates MILLIONS of dollars a year to charities. Where would that money come from if the govt took it all away?

The fact is our society is built to have people that get ahead, innovate, make MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. You get paid based on your talent. So if you suck at life, you dont get to own a ferrari. Some people get lucky and accumulate wealth easily, some earn it through more conventional methods, some NEVER get ahead. Thats how you have a balanced society. This utopian dream is bullshit and will never happen.

Lets say your employer lays you off tomorrow because they increase his taxes 10%. Will you be thankful then?

I just cant believe some of the unfounded idiotic statements people make. Its easy when you make $20,000 a year to look at the guy making $200,000 a year and saying "GIVE ME MORE OF WHAT YOU HAVE". Its harder to actually try and get to his level.

Which is what our society has become, a bunch of complainers and whinersIm definitely not jealous. I dont need a million dollars. I could do the same exact things millionaires could with 200k. I can live in a huge house (paid off), drive nice cars (paid off), go on vacation when or wherever I want , and my kids college would be paid for. What do I need a million bucks for? To buy millionaire estates with? Who's gonna clean all that shit? Definitely not me. Tax em all. 90% like they did back in the 50's and 60's. When americans quality of life was 100x better, the rich were still rich and the middle class was stronger. All those CEO's you've listed, their PERSONAL income is separate from their BUSINESS income. The only reason jobs would be lost is because of greed, someone else wanting to maintain the same income by taking away from their employees. We've cut taxes once (Bush Jr. pt. 1) on top of pouring $$$ down the drain in Iraq and its pretty evident what thats done for the economy. I have no problem getting mine. I work just as hard as anyone. But its time for the greed for greed's sake to end. No, it didnt work for Reagan, the president of Wall Street (thank you, deregulation), and you have to be out of your mind to think it worked for Bush Jr. You must not live in the same Americas that I do, but us little guys are having a pretty hard time. Even if you dont realize it. Lets stop catering to the rich, and start catering to everyone. If you have a problem with EVERYONE being "successful" then you're part of the problem at hand

[BanginJimmy]

You really are pretty dense arent you?



Im definitely not jealous.

Ok, not jealousy, envy.



I dont need a million dollars. I could do the same exact things millionaires could with 200k.

No you cant.




I can live in a huge house (paid off), drive nice cars (paid off), go on vacation when or wherever I want , and my kids college would be paid for.



Sorry, but 200k doesnt go half as far as you think it does. Cant even get a 200k mortgage will only 200k in taxable income, which would actually be about $18000 in take home with your tax plan. Cant go on vacation, buy a car or send a kid to college with only 20k a year in take home pay either. You might be able to find some nice section 8 housing though.



[QUOTE=.blank cd;39243426]What do I need a million bucks for? To buy millionaire estates with?

Or buy a car or 2, go on vacation, buy a house. You may not need a million dollar salary for that, but it does get you higher quality.



Who's gonna clean all that shit? Definitely not me.

This is one of the many industries that jobs are created by those that have earned some wealth. Millionaires hire people to cook for them, clean for them, take care of their cars, boats and lawns.




Tax em all. 90% like they did back in the 50's and 60's. When americans quality of life was 100x better,

What, measures are you using to say quality of life was better?




the rich were still rich and the middle class was stronger.

The relative weakness of the modern middle class has nothing to do with personal income taxes. The weakness has to do with American corporations competing on an unlevel playing ground with China, Mexico, and other third world countries that do not have the high labor costs that are present in the US. Those same companies that American companies are competing with are also aided by the fact that they dont suffer under the same corporate tax rates that are found in the US, which are the highest in the world. American markets are also far more open to foreign competition that most other markets are to American competition. This usually means very high import taxes on American goods which drasticly raises the final price. Add all of these things up and you will se that the weakness in the middle class is directly related to the weakness in the American manufacturing sector.



All those CEO's you've listed, their PERSONAL income is separate from their BUSINESS income.


As usual, you are wrong. Small business owners, and especially sole proprietors do not separate their business income from their personal income. Most may be set up as some type of corporation to shield personal assets from business assets, but as far as income goes, they are one in the same. If the business has a bad week, the owner doesnt get paid, if they have a great week, the owner gets a great paycheck.



The only reason jobs would be lost is because of greed, someone else wanting to maintain the same income by taking away from their employees.

And why is this wrong? Why should the owner of the company, the one that took all of the risks in starting the company, lower his standard of living? Greed is supposed to be this dirty word designed to make otherwise honest businesspeople seem to be the enemy.



We've cut taxes once (Bush Jr. pt. 1) on top of pouring $$$ down the drain in Iraq and its pretty evident what thats done for the economy.

Another example that you really have no clue what you are talking about and simply spouting off what you have heard from politicially dependent politicians. The problems with our current economy can be traced to one major thing, and MANY much smaller things. That one major thing being that bottom falling out of the housing industry. When that bubble burst it affected every portion of the American economy. Those sectors that werent directly connected to housing were affected by the losses that the financial sector took. Those that were directly affected by the housing or financial sectors were hurt by the massive loss of jobs in all sectors, especially sales and manufacturing.

I'll let you do your own research into the causes of the housing meltdown. Of course, you will probably just let Obama do your research for you anyways so you still wont have a clue.



But its time for the greed for greed's sake to end.

Why dont you point out 1 example of greed for greed's sake that is also legal. I would agree with you in a case like Bernie Madoff or Enron.



No, it didnt work for Reagan, the president of Wall Street (thank you, deregulation), and you have to be out of your mind to think it worked for Bush Jr. You must not live in the same Americas that I do, but us little guys are having a pretty hard time. Even if you dont realize it.


Actually it did work for Reagan. As he lowered taxes a stagnant economy started to boom at the end of his presidency. Tax revenues were also much higher when he left office than when he went into office even though tax rates were far lower.



Lets stop catering to the rich, and start catering to everyone.

Lets say the same thing in reverse. Lets stop catering to the poor and cater to everyone. Lets treat everyone equally. No more of the 47% of American families that pay zero income taxes. Also, no more tax shelters purchased by corporations in the the form of political donations.

Here are the top 10 donators of the last 20 years.

http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2011/04/top-us-political-donors-from-last-20.html

This think its those evil republicans catering to business?




If you have a problem with EVERYONE being "successful" then you're part of the problem at hand

I'm glad that you recognize that you are part of the problem. Now I wonder if you are willing to open up your mind to reality and actually try to understand what it would take to fix it.


BTW, liberals always seem to think the best way to make a "fair" society is to bring the top down, not bring the bottom up.

[eraser4g63]

I do love how it is always the rich peoples fault for where we are now, and its never the people who constantly take from the system and never give back. BTW, Anyone can make it to the top, but there is not room for everyone at the top. Just a fact of life.

[.blank cd]

Not dense. Just aware. Guess I got under your skin didnt I? Jealousy and envy are synonyms. Yeah sure, it'd be cool to drive a Ferrari once or twice, but the maintenance plan on cars like that are outrageous. What am I gonna do with a multi-million dollar mansion? I dont want either. I could sleep just as well in a 200k dollar home. Were you saying that I couldnt get a $200k home with $200k take home pay? or even 180k? I dunno how you figure that considering I have a $150k home right now, taking home 30k. So yes, I could have a nice home, nice car, go on vacation when I wanted, and have my kids college paid for. $200k goes plenty far. I was definitely right about CEO's personal and business assests separate. Then you proved me in your own statement. Jobs may be the best example, as he only gets a salary of one cold George Washington. This man is worth BILLIONS of dollars, and if he sells a couple less iphones one month, Jobs will be worth BILLIONS of dollars


And why is this wrong? Why should the owner of the company, the one that took all of the risks in starting the company, lower his standard of living? Greed is supposed to be this dirty word designed to make otherwise honest businesspeople seem to be the enemy. This statement particularly chilled me. I dont think my job should be at stake because my bosses tax rate doubled and now he cant afford his second Murcielago. If you think thats ok, then whatever. Just doesnt seem right to me. I wonder if im the only one. Remind me never to work for you.

I dont think I have enough space to list all the examples of greed for greed's sake. So I'll just list a couple. Heres the most recent example of Borders on the verge of folding, laying off thousands of jobs, and paying almost $9 million in bonuses to executives...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222642969830886.html

Heres a few words that should put a foul taste in anyones alive in the past 5 years. Greed.
AIG
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers

Hey, after some more research, you're right. It did work for Reagan, and his buddy Donald Reagan, A.K.A. Director of the SIPC, CEO of Merril Lynch, and vice chairman of the NYSE. and thats it.


BTW, liberals always seem to think the best way to make a "fair" society is to bring the top down, not bring the bottom up. And its the conservatives that always seem to think "Lets keep the bottom where they're at and lets bring the top even higher"

[.blank cd]

I do love how it is always the rich peoples fault for where we are now, and its never the people who constantly take from the system and never give back. BTW, Anyone can make it to the top, but there is not room for everyone at the top. Just a fact of life.Theres plenty of room for those people down here at the bottom!

[BanginJimmy]

Not dense. Just aware.

I find that impossible to believe.



Guess I got under your skin didnt I?

Not at all, I simply understand that you have an ideology that you put more faith in than you do the truth. Maybe I was stupid to think you had the intelligence to see through it, but I guess I was wrong.


Were you saying that I couldnt get a $200k home with $200k take home pay? or even 180k? I dunno how you figure that considering I have a $150k home right now, taking home 30k.

Reading comprehension seems to be a little over your head so I will try to spell it out a little more clearly.

Someone that makes 200k a year, those evil rich people you mentioned, wouldnt be able to afford a 200k house under your tax plan. In fact, someone making 200k a year would be left with take home pay of only 18k after income taxes. Even less when you consider payroll taxes.


I was definitely right about CEO's personal and business assests separate. Then you proved me in your own statement. Jobs may be the best example, as he only gets a salary of one cold George Washington. This man is worth BILLIONS of dollars, and if he sells a couple less iphones one month, Jobs will be worth BILLIONS of dollars

We arent talking major corporate CEOs though. Jobs may only get a $1 salary, but I can assure you he gets many millions a year in stock and dividends. Those are only taxed at 15%. Jobs may even be making money by only being paid $1, not just avoiding the higher tax rate.

As I already said though, I, and everyone else talking about this, are talking about small business owners. Small business owners, which Jobs is not, do not, and typically cannot, separate business income from personal income because a small business owner doesnt get paid until the business bills are paid.


This statement particularly chilled me. I dont think my job should be at stake because my bosses tax rate doubled and now he cant afford his second Murcielago. If you think thats ok, then whatever. Just doesnt seem right to me. I wonder if im the only one. Remind me never to work for you.

So you think you have more of a right to his money than you do? It is his job and he has every right to decide how many people he needs to fill it.


I dont think I have enough space to list all the examples of greed for greed's sake. So I'll just list a couple. Heres the most recent example of Borders on the verge of folding, laying off thousands of jobs, and paying almost $9 million in bonuses to executives...
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222642969830886.html[/url

Heres a few words that should put a foul taste in anyones alive in the past 5 years. Greed.
AIG
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers

I see a lot of things with those companies, but I dont see greed. Look at the way most executive salaries are paid. As pointed out in your own article, Border's bonuses pay out between 90 and 150% of base salary. The CEO only got a 1.7m bonus meaning he made maybe 3m for the year. You will find that that is not excessive for a corporate CEO.

I'm willing to bet you couldnt even define greed without the use of a dictionary.


Hey, after some more research, you're right. It did work for Reagan, and his buddy Donald Reagan, A.K.A. Director of the SIPC, CEO of Merril Lynch, and vice chairman of the NYSE. and thats it.

And every employee of a company in the defense industry, automotive industry, service industry, and financial industry. Oh, and every employee of a small business.



And its the conservatives that always seem to think "Lets keep the bottom where they're at and lets bring the top even higher"

Actually conservatives have done more to help the bottom than liberals have. Liberals try to keep people down by giving them endless handouts and telling them it is not their responsibility to take care of themselves. The govt is the one that failed, thats why they dropped out of school, cant read, and go to prison.


I can make 1 absolute statement right now though. If you take all of the cash in this country and give every adult 100k, the same people that are rich right now, would be rich again in 10 years. The same people that are poor now, will be poor again in 10 years.

[BanginJimmy]

Theres plenty of room for those people down here at the bottom!

And there you go, confirming my statement about liberals. Why bring the bottom up, when it is so much easier to just bring the top down?

[.blank cd]

Im not a political science major or anything, but I can define greed for ya. Greed:(see: Borders) A guy that makes 3 million A YEAR (That means last year he had 3 million, this year he had 3 mil, next year he'll have 3 mill, so on and so fourth) taking almost 2 million more in bonuses (this year, might have had the same last year) while thousands of his people are without a job. But, hey he's a CEO right? Just looking out for his bottom line, just looking out for his own ass. His people are jobless, but hey, he can afford that new Ferrari Enzo he wanted, and post it up on ImportAtlanta for all of us to gawk at. I think that pretty much sums it, dont you? Anyone else wanna agree with me?

[Vteckidd]

You're clueless. Go run a business , get an education, and then tell me tax the rich at 90%. You're statements reek of selfishness. And stealing someone else's wealth they worked hard for because you're mad at your own life situation is simply, foolish.

[Vteckidd]

Why shouldn't Jobs make millions and billions? He STARTED apple! He tool a company from nothing to something, almost went bankrupt, then brought it back again. He innovated and developed technology that allows us to be more connected as a society. He took risks, and it paid off.

So who are YOU to tell him he is "too rich". Who are you to tell him he owns too many ferraris. He risked everything, he had an idea, it worked, now he's a muli millionaire who employs thousands of people.

He already pays a pretty high corporate and personal income tax rate. Why increase it just to give that money o people who pay NO TAXES AT ALL.

If you tax him at 90% all apple jobs WILL disappear, there will be no incentive to work hard and make money.

[Vteckidd]

I also dont think you comprehend the scope of your statements. I think youre looking at it as a "im 2X make $25,000 a year, man if i had $250,000 id be set for life". That is a VERY narrow view of the world.

Let me show you:

OK you have made a few comments about "drive one less Lambo" or "one less Ferrari", etc. Lets examine that a little closer:

As of 2007, the Ferrari Factory in Italy employed about 3000 people. These are skilled engineers, designers, labor people, machinists, etc. That is just the FACTORY, that is NOT the hundreds of dealerships, salesmen, mechanics, etc that are employed over here stateside. So, when people like Steve Jobs cant afford to buy that "1 more ferrari" how many people that WORK FOR Ferrari will be out of a job? AMerica which has the most millionaires in the world, what if youre new awesome steal 90% from the rich tax package not only single destroys wealth and jobs in the USA, it also effects people around the globe. Many people who work for Ferrari are NOT millionaires, so how do you explain to them "hey your clientele who used to be able to purchase this vehicle, we think they make too much money, and oh by the way you sell them for too much, sorry".

Lambo is in a similar situation.

YOu do sound extremely jealous, and you generalize every statement like every person who make a million dollars is off in their million dollar yacht and their million dollar ferrari. Its simply not true and i can tell you why.

I worked for a company locally owned and operated. This business employs about 50 people. I do not know exact numbers but i do know they do millions of dollars worth of sales a year. Do you think the owner is driving around in his Ferrari? no. He drives a modest but nice Lexus LS430, his wife drives a honda accord, they have a nice home, but its not a mansion, you know why? Its because he is interested in investing and growing his business even more. He just invested millions in a new state of the art store and is expanding from a 2000 sq foot store to a 8000 square foot store. He will hire an additional 75 new people once they open. On paper, he is one of your "evil rich people".

My father, worked for 22 years in the Air Force. Top salary was $82000 two years before he retired. He raised 3 kids, put us through school, college, etc. Many years we barely made ends meet. He made dirt for MOST of his life but he served his country. At 46 he retired a Col. He decided to continue working in the private sector. He got hired as a Govt Contractor and now makes over $250k a year.

The reason for his huge pay increase? Its because he has 22 years of Air Force communications experience and a masters in IT. So now, at 56 years old my mother and father can afford to do things they never got to do in the Air Force. Like own a home, a $40,000 car, take vacations and go on cruises, etc. So youre telling me that my father deserves to pay MORE than the 35% in taxes he pays now? Why? Cause he worked hard , sacrificed, and didnt really reap ANY rewards until he was well into his 50s?

Instead of worrying about all those guys, why dont you focus on your situation and making it better. Maybe youll never own a ferrari, maybe youll never own a million dollar mansion, but to some people that is important, and who are we to say "thats too much".

Again its easy when you make $20,000 to sit here and say $200,000 is "rich" and "plenty of money".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXpaBQnBvE&feature=related

[BanginJimmy]

Im not a political science major or anything,

Well, that was obvious.




but I can define greed for ya. Greed:(see: Borders) A guy that makes 3 million A YEAR (That means last year he had 3 million, this year he had 3 mil, next year he'll have 3 mill, so on and so fourth) taking almost 2 million more in bonuses (this year, might have had the same last year) while thousands of his people are without a job. But, hey he's a CEO right? Just looking out for his bottom line, just looking out for his own ass. His people are jobless, but hey, he can afford that new Ferrari Enzo he wanted, and post it up on ImportAtlanta for all of us to gawk at. I think that pretty much sums it, dont you? Anyone else wanna agree with me?


What you just described is smart business. Its obvious that you didnt read the article you posted though. Its also obvious from this response that you seriously lack the ability to comprehend what you read. If you read at all.


I find it funny that you ignore 90% of what I write and try to focus in on 1 small aspect. Let me know if I need to dumb it down for you. I will see if I can get my 15yo niece to explain it to you.

[Echonova]

Atlas Shrugged.


Read it.


Edit: Not directed at anyone that agrees with me. Like ^^^


Although if you haven't read it, you need to.

[Echonova]

BTW: Now that I took the time to read through some of the drivel... Let's look at profit margin.


"Evil Oil Industry": 8.3%-10%

Apple iPad: 42.5%

Who's "greedy"?

[RL...]

I have not read any posts in this thread, but all I'm sayin is that when obama was elected in 08 the national debt was about 5.6 trillion, and its in the 14's now....in only 2 and a half years =O

[GlennsEK]

agree with above ^^^^ in my eyes he hasnt really done anything accept cost Americans more and more lives loss in places where we shouldn't be in the first place.

[bu villain]

You're distorting the argument. Lowering taxes increases revenue because it increases taxable income and adds jobs which adds more taxpayers to the system. That's how it works.

Worked for Reagan and bush 43.

How am I distorting the argument? Not only are you using a mere 2 points of data as proof of some immutable law of economics but your conclusion comes with the unstated assumption that revenue is a perfect indicator of how good the current tax policy is. Is it reasonable to say that if we get less revenue this year that it must be because of Obama's tax policies (which are pretty much the same as Bushes) and the fact we are in the deepest economic recession in 80 years is irrelevant? Can you show a statistically significant correlation between revenue and tax rates for every president or just the ones you cherry pick?

Correlation is not causation...period.

If less taxes always brings in more revenue, explain to me why we shouldn't have a 1% tax rate for everyone.

[bu villain]

I have not read any posts in this thread, but all I'm sayin is that when obama was elected in 08 the national debt was about 5.6 trillion, and its in the 14's now....in only 2 and a half years =O

I almost laughed out loud on this one.... admitting you didn't read anything in the thread then indulging in your need to add some statement which is only related to anything being discussed here by the loosest of threads.

Thanks for making my day...you sir, are winning!

[Vteckidd]

How am I distorting the argument? Not only are you using a mere 2 points of data as proof of some immutable law of economics but your conclusion comes with the unstated assumption that revenue is a perfect indicator of how good the current tax policy is. Is it reasonable to say that if we get less revenue this year that it must be because of Obama's tax policies (which are pretty much the same as Bushes) and the fact we are in the deepest economic recession in 80 years is irrelevant? Can you show a statistically significant correlation between revenue and tax rates for every president or just the ones you cherry pick?

its cause i didnt have time to type up a 10000 word response so i was brief.

You cant compare the tax rates of an early NON industrial time period (30s, 40s,50s) to todays economic environment. We are much more global, much more involved and invested, and the market is MUCH more complex than it was 50-60-70-80 years ago. Define WEALTH in the 50s vs today.

Lets look at several examples:

FDR through his massive amounts of spending, only worsened the depression, not make it better.

Jimmy Carter with his price freezing and horrible foreign policy caused us massive inflation, which, Reagan through tax cuts , turned around. We did have deficit spending under reagan but we got ECONOMIC GROWTH out of it, from Obamas spending we have not gotten the same thing. If anything we have gotten a retraction, much like FDR.

Bush Jr inherited a recession from the dotcom bubble under clinton. Bush Tax cuts actually i believe worked because revenue was at an all time HIGH, and we had HISTORIC unemployment for 7 3/4 years till the housing collapse.

If cutting taxes DOESNT work, and im ONLY talking about economic growth and job creation, how come the only instances of RAISING taxes in the last 30 years (carter, Obama) have destroyed the economy, and the only 2 instances of CUTTING taxes, has spurred unprecendented economic growth? Thats not a sarcastic question, im serious, those are the facts.


If less taxes always brings in more revenue, explain to me why we shouldn't have a 1% tax rate for everyone.

That is a distortion of the argument. Let me be more clear. THe notion of raising taxes in a sluggish and slow contracting economy kills jobs, period. At a time when small business is hurting, it is not smart to increase their costs if you want them to invest and hire workers. So if we had 4% unemployment, a low national debt, and you wanted to raise taxes, i wouldnt be as against it as i am now.

The fact is there is a balance between cutting taxes and increasing revenues. its a proportional argument. You COULD cut taxes to 1% if you could feed millions more people into the system, which is my point. But that is highly unlikely to happen or we would never get to that point because of inflation, and the way our society functions. You cant have everyone making 100,000 a year. I mean you can, but that $100,000 a year would be like making $20,000 a year by rule of inflation, supply and demand.

IE What we DO have economic data on is what i described above. Bush and Reagan cut taxes and actually collected more revenue, because by cutting taxes they allowed more people to be hired, which in turn meant more people with taxable income, and higher profits for corporations and small business meant more money collected in taxes.

[bu villain]

Wow, I just typed a long response which dissapeared and I'm not patient enough to retype it. Long story short... now you agree with me that there is a balance between cutting taxes and increasing revenue. That was the only arguement I have been trying to make this whole time. I never argued we can tax our way out of our economic problems or that raising taxes would help job growth or anything like that. Amazing it was so difficult to realize we agree!

Quick question though. You said Obama raised taxes. Which taxes would those be exactly?

Also, I still don't agree with your final conclusion. I think a large part of Bush's revenues were based on an unnatural real estate and finanical services boom which had nothing to do with his tax policies.

[Vteckidd]

Wow, I just typed a long response which dissapeared and I'm not patient enough to retype it. Long story short... now you agree with me that there is a balance between cutting taxes and increasing revenue. That was the only arguement I have been trying to make this whole time. I never argued we can tax our way out of our economic problems or that raising taxes would help job growth or anything like that. Amazing it was so difficult to realize we agree!

I hate when that happens lol i always SAVE before i hit submit.


Quick question though. You said Obama raised taxes. Which taxes would those be exactly?
Hes raised taxes on a lot of things:

He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children's health insurance programs. The law went into effect in 2009. He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year.

The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage. The tax phases in gradually, starting in 2014. By 2016, the tax would be $695 per uninsured person up to a maximum of three times that amount, or $2,085. The law includes exemptions for people who can't find affordable insurance, and a few other special circumstances.

More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate. (Current law is that all workers and employers split a 2.9 percent Medicare tax; the self-employed pay all of it.)

The small percentages may not sound like a lot, but those taxes are expected to generate $210 billion over 10 years, or just over half of all the new revenues the health care law authorizes. Other provisions include new fees on health insurance companies and prescription drug manufacturers, and a new tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans.

So he has not increased INCOME taxes, but several other taxes have been passed or will take effect because of legislation hes signed. However, prob the biggest "tax" has been the massive spending which has translated to inflation, which is a tax paid by everyone, including the poor.



Also, I still don't agree with your final conclusion. I think a large part of Bush's revenues were based on an unnatural real estate and finanical services boom which had nothing to do with his tax policies.
I also agree that some of Bush numbers were distorted from a bubble and he did benefit from the housing crisis before it collapsed. I mean EVERYONE was a real estate agent and everyone was in construction. Now where are those people....... I do think however though that you do have to give him some credit that the tax "cuts" did do something positive as without them we could easily argue a recession would have hit and perhaps its a double edged sword. Maybe with higher taxes maybe growth would not have been as much, and maybe the collapse wouldnt have been so great......


But that gets us into a who caused the housing collapse and i dont have the strength or energy to argue that topic anymore LOL.

[RL...]

If I were president I would reduce medicare and medicaid benefits and eligibility, slightly raise taxes, revamp welfare so it's not a handout, and start getting this country back on track to how things should be.

I also think that the whole democrat and republican 2 party system should be dismissed, and in turn have a new party called the "NO bullshit" party. Which means no bullshit, straight to the point. Where politicians actually tell the truth, do what they say they're going to do, and have the general populations best interest in mind.

One can dream eehhhh

[.blank cd]

I worked for a company locally owned and operated. This business employs about 50 people. I do not know exact numbers but i do know they do millions of dollars worth of sales a year. Do you think the owner is driving around in his Ferrari? no. He drives a modest but nice Lexus LS430, his wife drives a honda accord, they have a nice home, but its not a mansion, you know why? Its because he is interested in investing and growing his business even more. He just invested millions in a new state of the art store and is expanding from a 2000 sq foot store to a 8000 square foot store. He will hire an additional 75 new people once they open. On paper, he is one of your "evil rich people".

My father, worked for 22 years in the Air Force. Top salary was $82000 two years before he retired. He raised 3 kids, put us through school, college, etc. Many years we barely made ends meet. He made dirt for MOST of his life but he served his country. At 46 he retired a Col. He decided to continue working in the private sector. He got hired as a Govt Contractor and now makes over $250k a year.

The reason for his huge pay increase? Its because he has 22 years of Air Force communications experience and a masters in IT. So now, at 56 years old my mother and father can afford to do things they never got to do in the Air Force. Like own a home, a $40,000 car, take vacations and go on cruises, etc. So youre telling me that my father deserves to pay MORE than the 35% in taxes he pays now? Why? Cause he worked hard , sacrificed, and didnt really reap ANY rewards until he was well into his 50s?

Instead of worrying about all those guys, why dont you focus on your situation and making it better. Maybe youll never own a ferrari, maybe youll never own a million dollar mansion, but to some people that is important, and who are we to say "thats too much".

Again its easy when you make $20,000 to sit here and say $200,000 is "rich" and "plenty of money".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXpaBQnBvE&feature=relatedOk, I'll admit the 90% thing was kinda a euphemism, but theres definitely something wrong with these pictures
http://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph
Im happy for your family. It really sounds like a family that higher education worked for, but sadly it doesnt work that way all the time. Sounds like he got into college when the college system wasnt as messed up as it is now. Its easy to look at the system the way its designed to work and say everyone has equal chances, but the way it actually is implemented leaves alot of people stranded. And your business model you posted, I totally agree with. This is how corporations should be run. I don't necessarily have a problem with this.
If I had 250k, I could definitely stretch it out for a few years, but if I had 250k a year, I definitely wouldnt be worried about money anymore.



What you just described is smart business. Its obvious that you didnt read the article you posted though. Its also obvious from this response that you seriously lack the ability to comprehend what you read. If you read at all. I find it funny that you ignore 90% of what I write and try to focus in on 1 small aspect. Let me know if I need to dumb it down for you. I will see if I can get my 15yo niece to explain it to you.So lemme get this straight. Lets say since, out of high school, I can't scrounge up 50k bucks on my own, and my parents arent rich, I take advantage of a student loan. After 4 years of working my ass off in school, I graduate top of my class. Now, burdened with astronomical student loan and personal debt, since tuition rates are skyrocketing by the minute and more and more fees arent covered by the loans , I get a well paying job in my field (lets just Computer I.T.) and a home and a car. Things go well for the first few years and I manage to tackle 60k bucks worth of college. The next year, a wife, and a child comes into the picture, and things go well until year 5. Me and 5000 my teammates all get laid off because the president of the company learned that a firm in India will do the job at 75% the cost of what we could do it for. Now Im working in a bar waiting tables, defaulting on credit cards, balloon payments on the house hit, then I get foreclosed on. Same with my teammates. Why did he have to save so much money? To offset his income tax increase. This is all ok because it was smart business? Im just seeing if we're on the same page here because this example is what you just told me was smart business. This is why I focus on one part of your argument. Cause the rest of it sounded like utter garbage with zero facts, a bunch of rhetoric, and this. And I really dont think its you're fault either dude. I think some far right wing corporate millionaire convinced you that the left is trying to screw you over, that socialism is the same thing as Nazism and communism, and that the tooth fairy is real.

I don't necessarily have a problem with some corporations. Take Apple for example. They make an excellent product. They CONSTANTLY R&D and innovate. I will buy them until they stop making them. They provide jobs for many people, alot of which they could bring here, but thats another argument. Borders had a great idea, get into the book business, everyone reads. Instant billionaires. But then times changed and books can be bought and read on my phone now. Instead of changing with the times, what did they do? The CEO thought that since his pockets were starting to get a little shallower, lets inflate prices. When that didn't work and customers stopped coming in? Lets fire some workers and close a couple stores, that'll work. Nope. So lets file chapter 11 (pun intended: see the chapter 11 bookstore, who also folded) and pay out bonuses to the executives (some of which, havent even been with the company for a year) before Bank of America turns it into Books of America. So no, that wasn't smart business. The CEO could have taken his 3 million dollar salary, and that 9 million dollars from wherever he got it from, and changed with the times, or innovated. 6000 people would still be employed, Borders would still be open, the CEO would still be making money. Instead of just one person winning, everyone wins.

Its ok to come over to the left side man, we have cake

[.blank cd]

If I were president I would reduce medicare and medicaid benefits and eligibility, slightly raise taxes, revamp welfare so it's not a handout, and start getting this country back on track to how things should be.

I also think that the whole democrat and republican 2 party system should be dismissed, and in turn have a new party called the "NO bullshit" party. Which means no bullshit, straight to the point. Where politicians actually tell the truth, do what they say they're going to do, and have the general populations best interest in mind.

One can dream eehhhhThere are other parties you can vote for. Dont think you're gonna "split the vote" if you vote for a 3rd party. Thats the way most people think, that it HAS to be D or R.

[RL...]

There are other parties you can vote for. Dont think you're gonna "split the vote" if you vote for a 3rd party. Thats the way most people think, that it HAS to be D or R.

Notice where I said "one can dream"..the current system favors the 2 party system and that's not going to change unfortunately.

[.blank cd]

So change it? It definitely won't change with an attitude like that

[bu villain]

Hes raised taxes on a lot of things:

He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products...

The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage...

More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy...


Thanks, I didn't know about some of those. I just knew that for me personally, he lowered my tax bill. When you say Obama "increased" taxes, that can be a little misleading because he raised some and lowered others. Some of those taxes only affect a small percentage of the population, others affect everyone so how did you aggregate them to be a net increase?


So he has not increased INCOME taxes, but several other taxes have been passed or will take effect because of legislation hes signed. However, prob the biggest "tax" has been the massive spending which has translated to inflation, which is a tax paid by everyone, including the poor.

I know what you are getting at but let's not start calling deficit spending a tax now.


I also agree that some of Bush numbers were distorted from a bubble and he did benefit from the housing crisis before it collapsed. I mean EVERYONE was a real estate agent and everyone was in construction. Now where are those people....... I do think however though that you do have to give him some credit that the tax "cuts" did do something positive as without them we could easily argue a recession would have hit and perhaps its a double edged sword. Maybe with higher taxes maybe growth would not have been as much, and maybe the collapse wouldnt have been so great......

But that gets us into a who caused the housing collapse and i dont have the strength or energy to argue that topic anymore LOL.

I'm not trying to discredit anything Bush did here, just giving an example of why revenue is not an accurate way to measure the effectiveness of tax policy. And don't worry, who/what caused the collapse is irrelevant anyways unless you were going to argue that it was caused by a tax increase (which I don't think you are).

[bu villain]

I also think that the whole democrat and republican 2 party system should be dismissed, and in turn have a new party called the "NO bullshit" party. Which means no bullshit, straight to the point. Where politicians actually tell the truth, do what they say they're going to do, and have the general populations best interest in mind.


Notice where I said "one can dream"..the current system favors the 2 party system and that's not going to change unfortunately.

As I'm sure you know, there is no rule that says we have to have a two party system so how are you going to "dismiss" them when we are all the ones keeping them there? A single vote for republicans or democrats doesn't have any more power than a vote for a third party. You don't get extra points for voting for the winning team. The two party system will end as soon as the American public decides to end it.

[msanch24]

lolol BanginJimmy is so stereotypical of what I see everyday in GA, it's hilarious. It's all about how you raise the next generation, I tell ya.

[Total_Blender]

Atlas Shrugged.


.

Better used as a doorstop or a paperweight.

That crappy movie they just made of it is tanking too. 6% from the critics at Rotten Tomatoes. :goodjob:

Oh, and Ayn Rand lived out the final years of her life on Medicare and Social Security.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_g rabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_neede d_them/

Now what was all that about "stealing the fruit of heroes labor"? Right, BULLSHIT.

[BanginJimmy]

lolol BanginJimmy is so stereotypical of what I see everyday in GA, it's hilarious. It's all about how you raise the next generation, I tell ya.


I would love to know what you mean by this.

[metalmatt47]

Screw taxes...


I just want my change. Anyone got any idea what his plans are for that?

[RL...]

As I'm sure you know, there is no rule that says we have to have a two party system so how are you going to "dismiss" them when we are all the ones keeping them there? A single vote for republicans or democrats doesn't have any more power than a vote for a third party. You don't get extra points for voting for the winning team. The two party system will end as soon as the American public decides to end it.

This is not true at all. The government backs the 2 party system, it's not up to the american people. You think the american people have any real power here? Not unless your in the top 1%, then no. This is not a democracy, remember that.

[RL...]

Screw taxes...


I just want my change. Anyone got any idea what his plans are for that?

Taxes are a necessary evil, and they need to be raised honestly...but the government also needs to cut the bs and stop spending on unnecessary things like wars overseas.

[Echonova]

Blah blah blah http://www.alternet.org/:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

Awesome website, totally devoid of any bias or slant.

Let's look at some of the top stories...


Reagan Budget Director Slams Paul Ryan Plan, Says 'Absolutely' Raise Taxes Instead
By Alex Seitz-Wald | ThinkProgress


Disgusting Daniels Will Defund Planned Parenthood, Despite Beltway Reputation for "Seriousness"
By Steve Benen | Washington Monthly


Bill That Would Deny Coverage for Abortion and Let Women Die in Emergency Rooms Is Back
By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet


Callous New Law to Close Award-Winning Urban Farming High School For Pregnant Teens
By Sara Novak | Treehugger


The Freak Show Begins: Romney Embarrasses Self at First GOP Sort-of Debate
By BooMan | Booman Tribune


Maher on the Royal Wedding and How America Today Resembles The Colonies Pre-1776
By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet



Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[BanginJimmy]

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

Awesome website, totally devoid of any bias or slant.

Let's look at some of the top stories...




Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Would you expect anything different from that moron?

[BanginJimmy]

Probably a waste of time as common sense is not so common around here but lets have some fun with this.



Now, burdened with astronomical student loan and personal debt, since tuition rates are skyrocketing by the minute and more and more fees arent covered by the loans , I get a well paying job in my field (lets just Computer I.T.) and a home and a car. Things go well for the first few years and I manage to tackle 60k bucks worth of college. The next year, a wife, and a child comes into the picture, and things go well until year 5. Me and 5000 my teammates all get laid off because the president of the company learned that a firm in India will do the job at 75% the cost of what we could do it for.

The business owner owes you nothing and owes his investors to make the business as profitable as legally possible.



Now Im working in a bar waiting tables,

No reason to stop looking for work i your field just because have that great job in the bar. Or how about taking on industry yourself and becoming an entrepreneur.



defaulting on credit cards,

If you are using credit cards when you are unemployed this is your own fault.



balloon payments on the house hit, then I get foreclosed on.

I guess you should have been a renter for a while longer and/or gotten a fixed rate mortgage. Again, a product of your own dumb decisions.



Why did he have to save so much money? To offset his income tax increase. This is all ok because it was smart business? Im just seeing if we're on the same page here because this example is what you just told me was smart business.

Dont confuse smart business with 'your' stupid life decisions. How is it your former employer's fault that you were stupid with your money, bought more house than you could afford, or used credit for things you couldnt afford?




This is why I focus on one part of your argument. Cause the rest of it sounded like utter garbage with zero facts, a bunch of rhetoric, and this.

You might want to look back over your own comments. I'm pretty sure that much of the same pieces of rhetoric you are espousing on us came straight from the Communist Manifesto.



And I really dont think its you're fault either dude. I think some far right wing corporate millionaire convinced you that the left is trying to screw you over, that socialism is the same thing as Nazism and communism, and that the tooth fairy is real.

Yea, I'm pretty buddy buddy with your average corporate millionaire extremist.

Now that you have admitted to being a socialist though, it does make most of your comments much easier to understand. You just dont have any real life experience to fall back on yet. You will get there at some point. Eventually you will learn that the govt is not your daddy. The govt is not looking out for your best interests. Someday you may even learn to make it on your own, without the govt propping you up.



I don't necessarily have a problem with some corporations. Take Apple for example. They make an excellent product. They CONSTANTLY R&D and innovate. I will buy them until they stop making them. They provide jobs for many people, alot of which they could bring here, but thats another argument. Borders had a great idea, get into the book business, everyone reads. Instant billionaires. But then times changed and books can be bought and read on my phone now. Instead of changing with the times, what did they do? The CEO thought that since his pockets were starting to get a little shallower, lets inflate prices. When that didn't work and customers stopped coming in? Lets fire some workers and close a couple stores, that'll work. Nope. So lets file chapter 11 (pun intended: see the chapter 11 bookstore, who also folded) and pay out bonuses to the executives (some of which, havent even been with the company for a year) before Bank of America turns it into Books of America. So no, that wasn't smart business. The CEO could have taken his 3 million dollar salary, and that 9 million dollars from wherever he got it from, and changed with the times, or innovated. 6000 people would still be employed, Borders would still be open, the CEO would still be making money. Instead of just one person winning, everyone wins.

Its ok to come over to the left side man, we have cake

For now, but who is going to buy the cake when all of the evil rich people are broke and living in the projects with the rest of you?

[.blank cd]

Probably a waste of time as common sense is not so common around here but lets have some fun with this.When you post, this is quite obvious


The business owner owes you nothing and owes his investors to make the business as profitable as legally possible.Riiiiiiight. Legal? barely; Ethical? moral? Not at all. But I guess thats the beauty of unfettered capitalism. Who needs ethics and morals when you have $$$$$$$. Right?


No reason to stop looking for work i your field just because have that great job in the bar. Or how about taking on industry yourself and becoming an entrepreneur. I didnt say anything about not looking for work. In your fairy-tale land, you think that all people that get fired/laid off dont look for work and just ask for handouts. This simply isn't the case in the real world. Also becoming an entrepreneur takes money.


-If you are using credit cards when you are unemployed this is your own fault.
-I guess you should have been a renter for a while longer and/or gotten a fixed rate mortgage. Again, a product of your own dumb decisions.
-Dont confuse smart business with 'your' stupid life decisions. How is it your former employer's fault that you were stupid with your money, bought more house than you could afford, or used credit for things you couldnt afford?So its ok to buy a home and use credit cards when I have a job, but as soon as i get fired/laid off, I'm stupid and living beyond my means? So if the company of my business owner goes under, and he looses his job and he defaults on his credit cards, and forecloses on his home, is he stupid for living beyond his means? I see where you're trying to go with this, but you failed.


You might want to look back over your own comments. I'm pretty sure that much of the same pieces of rhetoric you are espousing on us came straight from the Communist Manifesto.You sure know how to prove me right!


Now that you have admitted to being a socialist though, it does make most of your comments much easier to understand. You just dont have any real life experience to fall back on yet. You will get there at some point. Eventually you will learn that the govt is not your daddy. The govt is not looking out for your best interests. Someday you may even learn to make it on your own, without the govt propping you up.I guess I should go ahead and put this out there. Im an athiest as well. Another word that people believe is a bad word. But Im sure you knew that as you pointed out you know alot about my financial situation and my real life experience.

[Echonova]

Would you expect anything different from that moron?I wouldn't resort to name calling. I have no problem with people that honestly believe what they believe. I'm sure they think I'm just as wrong as I think they are.

There is an old saying that goes something like "If your 20 and not a Democrat you have no heart, if your 40 and not a Republican you have no brain"

My problem lies with the wizards of smart in Washington that intentionally sell us down the river. Republican or Democrat

[candycoated]

thats fukd!!!!

[bu villain]

This is not true at all. The government backs the 2 party system, it's not up to the american people. You think the american people have any real power here? Not unless your in the top 1%, then no. This is not a democracy, remember that.

So if every American voted for a third party candidate in every election possible, we would still be left with a two party system? Can you explain further because I don't understand how you are reaching your conclusion that it is impossible to change from a two party system.

[Vteckidd]

Ok, I'll admit the 90% thing was kinda a euphemism, but theres definitely something wrong with these pictures
http://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph
Im happy for your family. It really sounds like a family that higher education worked for, but sadly it doesnt work that way all the time. Sounds like he got into college when the college system wasnt as messed up as it is now. Its easy to look at the system the way its designed to work and say everyone has equal chances, but the way it actually is implemented leaves alot of people stranded. And your business model you posted, I totally agree with. This is how corporations should be run. I don't necessarily have a problem with this.

My father actually took 8 years to graduate because he worked full time and had to put himself through school. He was determined to go into college and finish it so he persevered. Something i have NOT done.

I do agree with you higher education is getting a little rediculous. The cost is skyrocketing, the professors are getting more and more wacky, etc




If I had 250k, I could definitely stretch it out for a few years, but if I had 250k a year, I definitely wouldnt be worried about money anymore.

Im single so yeah $250,000 a year, id be rich, id be set for a long time. But a family of 3 not so much money anymore. A family of 3 that lives in an area like Washington DC or New York, yeah , they will have a significantly lower standard of living that guys like us. So you have to also keep in mind that "250k" means different levels of wealth depending on where you live, family size, etc. Just because WE can do a lot with 250K as single males with no dependents, doesnt mean we are the standard. And if 250K is all a small business owner makes, we must take that into effect as he has to pay salaries, and other expenses.

Case in point i made XX,XXX while owning a small business. Friends were like OMG you are rich! What they didnt seew as that the money i made went towards:
$15000 in Ebay fees i paid that year
$14000 in rent i paid for my housing/office
$9000 in Ebay fees i paid (3% of every transaction)
thousands of dollars in FEDEX shipping fees
$275 for advertising on Honda-tech per month

So if i "made" $80000 in profit, it doesnt go as far as you would think.






So lemme get this straight. Lets say since, out of high school, I can't scrounge up 50k bucks on my own, and my parents arent rich, I take advantage of a student loan. After 4 years of working my ass off in school, I graduate top of my class. Now, burdened with astronomical student loan and personal debt, since tuition rates are skyrocketing by the minute and more and more fees arent covered by the loans , I get a well paying job in my field (lets just Computer I.T.) and a home and a car. Things go well for the first few years and I manage to tackle 60k bucks worth of college. The next year, a wife, and a child comes into the picture, and things go well until year 5. Me and 5000 my teammates all get laid off because the president of the company learned that a firm in India will do the job at 75% the cost of what we could do it for.

Does it suck, yes, does it happen, yes. But lets look at both sides of the issue. WHY did he go to india? Why were costs so much cheaper in India than it was in the USA? And more importantly, if he DOESNT do it, his competition will, and then he will have to lay you guys off anyway because he wont be able to compete price wise. So all he did was what was best for his business, and sometimes that means layoffs.

More importantly we need to study the reasons WHY the jobs were shipped overseas. Corporate tax rates too high, cheaper labor overseas (largely because US labor is too high because of unions), cheaper materials overseas because of China, etc.

Put yourself in his shoes. If you had a business that made a XXXX per year, and then you find out that your competitors are going to india to save money , you have to compete, or go out of business. So you either lay off people here and hire in india, or you layoff here and slow production and , well, lay off workers anyway. What you hope he does do is he goes to india, makes MORE money and creates more jobs in the USA, but that rarely happens.

But even then who are we to tell him "you have to employ these people no matter what" because that is what you are arguing.


Now Im working in a bar waiting tables, defaulting on credit cards, balloon payments on the house hit, then I get foreclosed on. Same with my teammates. Why did he have to save so much money? To offset his income tax increase. This is all ok because it was smart business? Im just seeing if we're on the same page here because this example is what you just told me was smart business. This is why I focus on one part of your argument. Cause the rest of it sounded like utter garbage with zero facts, a bunch of rhetoric, and this. And I really dont think its you're fault either dude. I think some far right wing corporate millionaire convinced you that the left is trying to screw you over, that socialism is the same thing as Nazism and communism, and that the tooth fairy is real.

And there are tons of stories of out of work IT guys doing nothing. But that also is a reflection of the market as well. IT was very saturated for a long time, and honestly most people may have been getting paid too much for little skills, so it is also a form of correction. But what alternative do we have? Your alternative is to what? FOrce him to keep the people employed? Sounds a little Communist to me. Sometimes in business people get fired, laid off, thats just life. All we can hope is that the certain IT professional finds another company to work for that is USA based. But no one is guaranteed a job for life. We should at least agree on that.





Borders had a great idea, get into the book business, everyone reads. Instant billionaires. But then times changed and books can be bought and read on my phone now. Instead of changing with the times, what did they do? The CEO thought that since his pockets were starting to get a little shallower, lets inflate prices. When that didn't work and customers stopped coming in? Lets fire some workers and close a couple stores, that'll work. Nope. So lets file chapter 11 (pun intended: see the chapter 11 bookstore, who also folded) and pay out bonuses to the executives (some of which, havent even been with the company for a year) before Bank of America turns it into Books of America. So no, that wasn't smart business. The CEO could have taken his 3 million dollar salary, and that 9 million dollars from wherever he got it from, and changed with the times, or innovated. 6000 people would still be employed, Borders would still be open, the CEO would still be making money. Instead of just one person winning, everyone wins.

You must have been against the GM bailout as well i assume. GM failed to change with the times and made an outdated product and continued to pay rediculous salaries to part time factory workers. So why not have the same attitude and let them fail?

You are dangerously close to communism. What is the punishment for this CEO running his company into the ground? FAILURE. Sure he makes off with millions, but his company is bust. He wont make millions anymore, he gets bad press, etc. But also you cant sit here and say you should have the power to dictate to private companies what and when they should invest their money. Thats ludicrous. Then we will no longer have a capitalist society, why be an entrepenuer if the govt can at anytime tell you how to invest your money, where to invest your money, and you have to give your money away and do it this way because "everyone wins".

Surely you see what im getting at. You sound like a smart guy, who means well, and i think just sees one side of the argument, not the entire picture.

If this is the wrong way to do it, whats the alternative? I dont see anything better. Cause the same system we see millionaires drive companies into the ground, is the same system that gives rise to companies like Apple, GM, Verizon, AT&T , etc

you have to put up with some Bad versions of the system (borders) to get people like Apple. And there is far more good than bad.

[BanginJimmy]

My problem lies with the wizards of smart in Washington that intentionally sell us down the river. Republican or Democrat


I agree with this completely. The problems in Washington arent the parties or even the ideologies. Its the people that we consistently send there. We KNOW they are going to lie to us. We KNOW they are only running for their own personal gain. We KNOW they will sell us down a river and adapt their own closely held beliefs and morals to fit the current situation. We KNOW all these things, yet we send the exact same type of people to DC election after election and expect a different outcome.

[Echonova]

I agree with this completely. The problems in Washington arent the parties or even the ideologies. Its the people that we consistently send there. We KNOW they are going to lie to us. We KNOW they are only running for their own personal gain. We KNOW they will sell us down a river and adapt their own closely held beliefs and morals to fit the current situation. We KNOW all these things, yet we send the exact same type of people to DC election after election and expect a different outcome.Exactly. It's the definition of insanity. Do the same thing over and over and over again, yet expect different results.

[AirMax95]

I agree with this completely. The problems in Washington arent the parties or even the ideologies. Its the people that we consistently send there. We KNOW they are going to lie to us. We KNOW they are only running for their own personal gain. We KNOW they will sell us down a river and adapt their own closely held beliefs and morals to fit the current situation. We KNOW all these things, yet we send the exact same type of people to DC election after election and expect a different outcome.

This says it all...and it goes back to corruption and who can get into whos pocket first....

Have an awesome day!

[ek forever]

Do corporations and businesses pay taxes?

If so, where do they get that money?

:D