Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND

Written By : John Hawkins

First off, here’s a breakdown of who pays into personal income taxes. Look at those numbers and SMELL the unfairness.

So, the top 10% of income earners pay 69.9% of the income tax while the bottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make the tax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be paying less? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if you got your information from Obama speeches and MSNBC.

Now, here’s another chart that defies conventional wisdom.

Over the decades, tax rates have varied quite a bit. They’ve even gone up as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming in doesn’t change very much in relation to GDP. It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue the government can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, more inelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put more emphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fix the problem with tax increases.

Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’s going to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the 20% of GDP mark, this is one hell of a scary graph.

Notice that we’re up from 2.7% of GDP in 1965 to 9.1% (the halfway mark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may take a little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — and so it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to pay off and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides those entitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, border security, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and even Harry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look at the size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and then conclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner than we think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controlling spiraling entitlement costs.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

How is it fair that 47% of Americans pay ZERO income tax?

How is it fair that those who pay ZERO get to vote to decide how much the rest of us have to pay?

Isn’t it time they payed their fair share?
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

How is it fair that 47% of Americans pay ZERO income tax?

How is it fair that those who pay ZERO get to vote to decide how much the rest of us have to pay?

Isn’t it time they payed their fair share?

Bill Dalasio

It’s not. But we’ve already established that some part of the population sees the productive as slaves to slaves to be sacrificed at the alter of their incompetence and indolence.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

The slavery word does come to mind from time to time.

Glenn Beck had a story about a restaurant owner who is pulling a “John Gault” and selling it all and unplugging from the system. He’s tired of working and providing jobs and having deadbeats call him a criminal for having money.

Bill Dalasio

Excellent point. I think I may have read about the guy.

One minor nit to pick, it’s “Galt” not “Gault”.

/I had to edit my post, as well. It’s early

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Oooooops
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Oooooops

Anonymous

Is it the workers who are productive or the business owners.

For without the later we would not have a need for the former.

Productivity starts with the business not the workers.
There is nothing stopping the workers from being a owner but themselves.
It is the workers themselves that make themselves slaves – i.e. they choose to be slaves.

Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.

StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
Anonymous

The American dream is no more.

Even college graduates can’t get jobs in spite of 200K educational loan obligations. And guess what. During the Bush administration, the law was changed to make it impossible to declare school loans in bankruptcy. Our best minds are moving to Canada and elsewhere for a second chance once permitted by bankruptcy. Trump had no school loans and therefore got new starts on three occasions, after he screwed his creditors.
Anonymous

The American dream is no more.

Even college graduates can’t get jobs in spite of 200K educational loan obligations. And guess what. During the Bush administration, the law was changed to make it impossible to declare school loans in bankruptcy. Our best minds are moving to Canada and elsewhere for a second chance once permitted by bankruptcy. Trump had no school loans and therefore got new starts on three occasions, after he screwed his creditors.
StanW

A college degree does not guarentee a job, SlowJoe. Marketable skills do. You get a masters degree in Elizabethean Poetry, expect to be delivering pizza’s for a living.

If you would stop whining, learn a marketable skill, and get a real job; we could all be spared from your hate-filled drivel.

The American Dream is alive and well, but you have to go get it. It is not going to come to you and do all the hard work for you.
StanW

A college degree does not guarentee a job, SlowJoe. Marketable skills do. You get a masters degree in Elizabethean Poetry, expect to be delivering pizza’s for a living.

If you would stop whining, learn a marketable skill, and get a real job; we could all be spared from your hate-filled drivel.

The American Dream is alive and well, but you have to go get it. It is not going to come to you and do all the hard work for you.
StanW

A college degree does not guarentee a job, SlowJoe. Marketable skills do. You get a masters degree in Elizabethean Poetry, expect to be delivering pizza’s for a living.

If you would stop whining, learn a marketable skill, and get a real job; we could all be spared from your hate-filled drivel.

The American Dream is alive and well, but you have to go get it. It is not going to come to you and do all the hard work for you.
StanW

A college degree does not guarentee a job, SlowJoe. Marketable skills do. You get a masters degree in Elizabethean Poetry, expect to be delivering pizza’s for a living.

If you would stop whining, learn a marketable skill, and get a real job; we could all be spared from your hate-filled drivel.

The American Dream is alive and well, but you have to go get it. It is not going to come to you and do all the hard work for you.
StanW

A college degree does not guarentee a job, SlowJoe. Marketable skills do. You get a masters degree in Elizabethean Poetry, expect to be delivering pizza’s for a living.

If you would stop whining, learn a marketable skill, and get a real job; we could all be spared from your hate-filled drivel.

The American Dream is alive and well, but you have to go get it. It is not going to come to you and do all the hard work for you.
Anonymous

The American dream is no more.

Even college graduates can’t get jobs in spite of 200K educational loan obligations. And guess what. During the Bush administration, the law was changed to make it impossible to declare school loans in bankruptcy. Our best minds are moving to Canada and elsewhere for a second chance once permitted by bankruptcy. Trump had no school loans and therefore got new starts on three occasions, after he screwed his creditors.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to his “The American dream” post

Many of those students that took out $200,000 loans never ran a cost profit analysis on the costs of the loans for the education they were about to receive.

It has very little to do with IQ – it is just stupid to take out that big of a loan w/out having a way to pay it off.

And it is a good thing to not be able to declare bankruptcy on student loans for the majority of student loans are from the government to begin with.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

slowjoe you’re a fucking moron. student loans can be declared in bankruptcy, and the current law went into effect in 1998!!

Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/studentloans.htm

You’re the dumbest person to post on this board ever,
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

slowjoe you’re a fucking moron. student loans can be declared in bankruptcy, and the current law went into effect in 1998!!

Discharging student loans became popular during the 1970s, when students would file for bankruptcy soon after they finished their pricey education. They would do so before they started earning so that they could get the loan out of the way. However, the requirements for discharging student loans were changed in 1998.

http://www.bankruptcyhome.com/studentloans.htm

You’re the dumbest person to post on this board ever,
StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
StanW

Except that those ‘slaves’ can leave that job and get another. Or increase their skills and be paid better. Or excel at their jobs and get promoted.

Or, they can just sit around and complain that other have more than they do… like YOU do, SlowJoe!
Anonymous

1. Workers are nothing more than a tool – much like a hammer or a screwdriver – their use is defined by their ability.

2. The cost of the tool is also defined by the ability.

3. The workers chose to be a tool – they also negotiated their compensation freely.

4. They can and could decline being just a tool at any moment – even today.
Anonymous

Agree here totally. Workers are viewed as tools by the wealthy and corporations, to be used and then cast aside when no longer useful. That’s why we have unemployment insurance. I notice that no one here tends to knock this socialist program. Out of job? Is that why you have the time to spend around here?
Anonymous

Agree here totally. Workers are viewed as tools by the wealthy and corporations, to be used and then cast aside when no longer useful. That’s why we have unemployment insurance. I notice that no one here tends to knock this socialist program. Out of job? Is that why you have the time to spend around here?
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
StanW

No, Joe. The people you work for view YOU as a tool. Also the people you associate with, the people you meet on the street, and the few members of your family that will actually speak to you.

Just because you are a tool does not mean everyone is.
Anonymous

Agree here totally. Workers are viewed as tools by the wealthy and corporations, to be used and then cast aside when no longer useful. That’s why we have unemployment insurance. I notice that no one here tends to knock this socialist program. Out of job? Is that why you have the time to spend around here?
Anonymous

Agree here totally. Workers are viewed as tools by the wealthy and corporations, to be used and then cast aside when no longer useful. That’s why we have unemployment insurance. I notice that no one here tends to knock this socialist program. Out of job? Is that why you have the time to spend around here?
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

@ joe in reply to “Agree here” titled post.

1. It is good friday so I don’t work. The type of work I do is not considered to be “work” by you, for I make my money by using my mind and by myself.

2. UI should be totally employee funded or eliminated.

3. Without wealthy funding businesses there would be no work.

4. How come you didn’t touch upon points #3 and #4.

5. It is not that the corps look upon them as tools, it is that the workers themselves defined themselves as tools by deciding to go work / be used by someone else.
Anonymous

You know nothing. You have no experience to speak from. Your opinion means absolutely nothing as it is based upon nothing. You are -self admittedly- below the median in intelligence. Take your drivel elsewhere.

Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.
Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.
Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.
Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.
Anonymous

Many workers are akin to slaves working for minimal wages, while the business owners make off like bandits. This is old stuff.

Anonymous

Sorry Nick, I will go ahead and correct you before the left wingers come in and do it for you. You will need to rephrase your statement to “47% of Americans pay zero FEDERAL income tax.”

You see, they are going to come on and claim that you are wrong in your statements because they may pay some state income tax, or tax on this or that.

Just clarifying so maybe the standard blathering from Joe and others can be nipped in the bud before they start. Probably won’t work though.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Thanks!

Anonymous

Sorry Nick, I will go ahead and correct you before the left wingers come in and do it for you. You will need to rephrase your statement to “47% of Americans pay zero FEDERAL income tax.”

You see, they are going to come on and claim that you are wrong in your statements because they may pay some state income tax, or tax on this or that.

Just clarifying so maybe the standard blathering from Joe and others can be nipped in the bud before they start. Probably won’t work though.
Anonymous

Sorry Nick, I will go ahead and correct you before the left wingers come in and do it for you. You will need to rephrase your statement to “47% of Americans pay zero FEDERAL income tax.”

You see, they are going to come on and claim that you are wrong in your statements because they may pay some state income tax, or tax on this or that.

Just clarifying so maybe the standard blathering from Joe and others can be nipped in the bud before they start. Probably won’t work though.
Anonymous

Sorry Nick, I will go ahead and correct you before the left wingers come in and do it for you. You will need to rephrase your statement to “47% of Americans pay zero FEDERAL income tax.”

You see, they are going to come on and claim that you are wrong in your statements because they may pay some state income tax, or tax on this or that.

Just clarifying so maybe the standard blathering from Joe and others can be nipped in the bud before they start. Probably won’t work though.
Anonymous

Sorry Nick, I will go ahead and correct you before the left wingers come in and do it for you. You will need to rephrase your statement to “47% of Americans pay zero FEDERAL income tax.”

You see, they are going to come on and claim that you are wrong in your statements because they may pay some state income tax, or tax on this or that.

Just clarifying so maybe the standard blathering from Joe and others can be nipped in the bud before they start. Probably won’t work though.
Anonymous

A federal income tax weighted vote

That way those who actually pay the taxes get to vote on the spending of their money.
Anonymous

A federal income tax weighted vote

That way those who actually pay the taxes get to vote on the spending of their money.
Anonymous

A federal income tax weighted vote

That way those who actually pay the taxes get to vote on the spending of their money.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I have a better idea. How about a Flat Tax?

Art Laffer: we should have a low rate flat tax for everybody.

Anonymous

My comment was in jest, to the imply in your post.

I am all for a flat tax – everyone should pay something.
Anonymous

My comment was in jest, to the imply in your post.

I am all for a flat tax – everyone should pay something.

Anonymous

Everyone does pay taxes. If not federal income taxes, state income tax, local county and city taxes, sales tax, real estate tax (directly or indirectly through rent), and a lot of taxes on alcohol, nicotine, gasoline, gambling, and even to cross bridges in my state.

And those taxes apply to everyone. The trouble is that they take more of a bite of the income of the poor man than the rich one, who may pay the same flat state income tax.
Anonymous

Focus – we are talking about Federal income taxes.

By the way the poor often do not have to pay sales taxes on food etc or even for food itself.

So stfu.
Anonymous

Everyone does pay taxes. If not federal income taxes, state income tax, local county and city taxes, sales tax, real estate tax (directly or indirectly through rent), and a lot of taxes on alcohol, nicotine, gasoline, gambling, and even to cross bridges in my state.

And those taxes apply to everyone. The trouble is that they take more of a bite of the income of the poor man than the rich one, who may pay the same flat state income tax.

Anonymous

We have a flat state income tax in Michigan. So people making say 30K per year pay the same rate of tax as Governor Snyder, whose income is in the multimillions.

And he just gave himself a small break proposing to lower the rate from 4.35 to 4.25 percent. How nice of him.

StanW

So everyone in Michigan pays the same rate.

Sounds fair to me, SlowJoe!
Anonymous

They do not pay the same rate for many people still pay nothing.
StanW

Shhhh, don’t tell Joe. He still thinks he’s making a point!
StanW

Shhhh, don’t tell Joe. He still thinks he’s making a point!
StanW

So everyone in Michigan pays the same rate.

Sounds fair to me, SlowJoe!
StanW

So everyone in Michigan pays the same rate.

Sounds fair to me, SlowJoe!
StanW

So everyone in Michigan pays the same rate.

Sounds fair to me, SlowJoe!
StanW

So everyone in Michigan pays the same rate.

Sounds fair to me, SlowJoe!
Anonymous

4.25% of $30,000 = $1,275
4.25% of $30 mil = $127,500

Seems fair to me.

You need to take some basic math classes.
Anonymous

If it were fair, Snyder would never have proposed it.
Anonymous

If it were fair, Snyder would never have proposed it.
Anonymous

If it were fair, Snyder would never have proposed it.
Anonymous

If it were fair, Snyder would never have proposed it.
Anonymous

If it were fair, Snyder would never have proposed it.
Anonymous

@joe in reply to “If it were” post

You are right the rich are paying much more in taxes than the poor and the rich unlike the poor consume very little of the socialistic programs.
Anonymous

4.25% of $30,000 = $1,275
4.25% of $30 mil = $127,500

Seems fair to me.

You need to take some basic math classes.
Anonymous

4.25% of $30,000 = $1,275
4.25% of $30 mil = $127,500

Seems fair to me.

You need to take some basic math classes.
Anonymous

4.25% of $30,000 = $1,275
4.25% of $30 mil = $127,500

Seems fair to me.

You need to take some basic math classes.
Anonymous

4.25% of $30,000 = $1,275
4.25% of $30 mil = $127,500

Seems fair to me.

You need to take some basic math classes.

Anonymous

We have a flat state income tax in Michigan. So people making say 30K per year pay the same rate of tax as Governor Snyder, whose income is in the multimillions.

And he just gave himself a small break proposing to lower the rate from 4.35 to 4.25 percent. How nice of him.
Anonymous

We have a flat state income tax in Michigan. So people making say 30K per year pay the same rate of tax as Governor Snyder, whose income is in the multimillions.

And he just gave himself a small break proposing to lower the rate from 4.35 to 4.25 percent. How nice of him.
Anonymous

We have a flat state income tax in Michigan. So people making say 30K per year pay the same rate of tax as Governor Snyder, whose income is in the multimillions.

And he just gave himself a small break proposing to lower the rate from 4.35 to 4.25 percent. How nice of him.
Anonymous

We have a flat state income tax in Michigan. So people making say 30K per year pay the same rate of tax as Governor Snyder, whose income is in the multimillions.

And he just gave himself a small break proposing to lower the rate from 4.35 to 4.25 percent. How nice of him.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I have a better idea. How about a Flat Tax?

Art Laffer: we should have a low rate flat tax for everybody.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I have a better idea. How about a Flat Tax?

Art Laffer: we should have a low rate flat tax for everybody.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I have a better idea. How about a Flat Tax?

Art Laffer: we should have a low rate flat tax for everybody.

Anonymous

That many people could be living off the minimum wage or low wages that are not much higher. Since no one here is living high on the hog, is it fair for you to accept lower tax rates and then complain?

StanW

Just because you are not capable of earning more than minimum wage does not mean the rest of us are, SlowJoe.

Minimum wage jobs are STARTER jobs, not careers!

Anonymous

Not starter jobs for everyone. Keep in mind that half of our people have IQs below the median. Besides, stats published a few years ago show that upward mobility, the American Dream, is a myth. Most people at the bottom stay there because they just don’t have the mental capacity to lurch forward. Yet they are willing to work and do so conscientitiously. They are just exploited by those who are more competent, and paid low in order to increase the take home of their superiors.

It is Social Darwinism that you are espousing here, nothing more.

StanW

If you are too stupid to imporve yourself and get a better job, then stay doing what you are doing and shut up about it, SlowJoe.

Businesses do not exist to pay you wads of cash so that you can live a lifestyle fo your choosing. They exist to provide goods & services and make a profit. If you think you are being exploited, THEN QUIT. Go find another job. You are not a slave and are not endentured to any company.

But it is so much easier for you and those like you to whine that you are not being handed everythign you want on a silver platter. Well too bad. The rest of us have to get up every morning and earn our paychecks EVERY DAY. And if we don’t, our employers will find someone else who will.

And since you want to bring up the idiot Darwin, then we’ll go there. Survival of the fittest. Don’t like it? Too bad!
Anonymous

IQ ≠ earnings.
Anonymous

Lemmings with a low mental capacity (like yourself) follow others off the cliff.
Anonymous

That is just another pathetic excuse of a lazy individual. IQ’s are not finite and can be improved. Mental capacity can be increased. Innovation stems from necessity and attitude not innate intelligence. When you remove necessity from the human experience -through cradle to grave entitlements- apathy sets in and leads to entropy.

Your mental disorder stems from collectivism.

Anonymous

Not starter jobs for everyone. Keep in mind that half of our people have IQs below the median. Besides, stats published a few years ago show that upward mobility, the American Dream, is a myth. Most people at the bottom stay there because they just don’t have the mental capacity to lurch forward. Yet they are willing to work and do so conscientitiously. They are just exploited by those who are more competent, and paid low in order to increase the take home of their superiors.

It is Social Darwinism that you are espousing here, nothing more.
Anonymous

Not starter jobs for everyone. Keep in mind that half of our people have IQs below the median. Besides, stats published a few years ago show that upward mobility, the American Dream, is a myth. Most people at the bottom stay there because they just don’t have the mental capacity to lurch forward. Yet they are willing to work and do so conscientitiously. They are just exploited by those who are more competent, and paid low in order to increase the take home of their superiors.

It is Social Darwinism that you are espousing here, nothing more.

StanW

Just because you are not capable of earning more than minimum wage does not mean the rest of us are, SlowJoe.

Minimum wage jobs are STARTER jobs, not careers!
StanW

Just because you are not capable of earning more than minimum wage does not mean the rest of us are, SlowJoe.

Minimum wage jobs are STARTER jobs, not careers!
StanW

Just because you are not capable of earning more than minimum wage does not mean the rest of us are, SlowJoe.

Minimum wage jobs are STARTER jobs, not careers!
StanW

Just because you are not capable of earning more than minimum wage does not mean the rest of us are, SlowJoe.

Minimum wage jobs are STARTER jobs, not careers!
Anonymous

Nixon lives pretty good Joe. OF course, unlike you, Nixon works hard and makes good decisions.
Anonymous

Nixon lives pretty good Joe. OF course, unlike you, Nixon works hard and makes good decisions.

Anonymous

How about the poor and disabled, Dick? How about the millions of people in our society who have poor intellect and are less well endowed than you, perhaps? As a major executive, have you hired any retarded people lately, Dick?

Here’s your problem: you do not deserve to sully the name of Dick Nixon by using it on a blog, the man who signed the Food Stamps Act for the poor into law, because you have nothing in common with him.
Anonymous

How about the poor and disabled, Dick? How about the millions of people in our society who have poor intellect and are less well endowed than you, perhaps? As a major executive, have you hired any retarded people lately, Dick?

Here’s your problem: you do not deserve to sully the name of Dick Nixon by using it on a blog, the man who signed the Food Stamps Act for the poor into law, because you have nothing in common with him.

Anonymous

I think retarded people should be:
The teachers in public schools
TSA employees
Bomb defusers
Pilots
NASA scientists
Nuclear power plant safety officers
Green power engineers
Train conductors
Emergency first responders
Police officers
etc…

I do know that Green power engineers could be see as being retarded already but they just lack basic math and economic skills.

Other then green power people, do we hire people that fit a need and those that fit the need best get the job?
Anonymous

I think retarded people should be:
The teachers in public schools
TSA employees
Bomb defusers
Pilots
NASA scientists
Nuclear power plant safety officers
Green power engineers
Train conductors
Emergency first responders
Police officers
etc…

I do know that Green power engineers could be see as being retarded already but they just lack basic math and economic skills.

Other then green power people, do we hire people that fit a need and those that fit the need best get the job?
Anonymous

Joe, Nixon tonight is dining on 20 oz hand cut ribeyes, twice baked spuds, and washing it down with Crawn Royal Reserve.

Have fun with your fucking happy meal.

Flagged for lying. Nixon is not a major executive, Nixon is self employed your dufus.
Anonymous

Joe, Nixon tonight is dining on 20 oz hand cut ribeyes, twice baked spuds, and washing it down with Crawn Royal Reserve.

Have fun with your fucking happy meal.

Flagged for lying. Nixon is not a major executive, Nixon is self employed your dufus.

Anonymous

Nixon lives pretty good Joe. OF course, unlike you, Nixon works hard and makes good decisions.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

If you cut company taxes to 17% with no loopholes they can afford to hire more employees and pay them more than minimum wage. Prices all around will fall because here’s the dirty little secret:

Big companies don’t pay high taxes, you do. They pass the taxes onto the consumer. AKA You.

Anonymous

Actually most multinationals hide their income over seas and most companies find ways to avoid paying any taxes at all.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Actually, no. Exxon pays quite a bit in Federal income tax. I believe the number is around $1400 per second.

Most of the companies Laffer is talking about are small businesses with less than a 1000 employees.
Anonymous

Example?
Anonymous

Example?
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

GE here is a link
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/
Anonymous

@ CV63 in reply to “GE” post
I have already argued on this exact same topic with joe so I’m not going to with you.

I agree it is f’d up and a large portion of it this year in GM is also due to BHO, which would be debunking joe’s next talking point.
It does need to be simplified – not further regulated.

BTW : I was stationed on CVN65.
Anonymous

@ CV63 in reply to “GE” post
I have already argued on this exact same topic with joe so I’m not going to with you.

I agree it is f’d up and a large portion of it this year in GM is also due to BHO, which would be debunking joe’s next talking point.
It does need to be simplified – not further regulated.

BTW : I was stationed on CVN65.
Anonymous

@ CV63 in reply to “GE” post
I have already argued on this exact same topic with joe so I’m not going to with you.

I agree it is f’d up and a large portion of it this year in GM is also due to BHO, which would be debunking joe’s next talking point.
It does need to be simplified – not further regulated.

BTW : I was stationed on CVN65.

Anonymous

Actually most multinationals hide their income over seas and most companies find ways to avoid paying any taxes at all.
Anonymous

Actually most multinationals hide their income over seas and most companies find ways to avoid paying any taxes at all.

Anonymous

That many people could be living off the minimum wage or low wages that are not much higher. Since no one here is living high on the hog, is it fair for you to accept lower tax rates and then complain?
Anonymous

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. “

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

This is true. I’m afraid we are at that point in our history.

This sounds a lot like a Ben Franklin quote.

Is it??

Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Alexander Tytler.

Although the same sort of thing Franklin might have said. And they were contemporaries.
Anonymous

Ben’s comment was similar:

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

We are at that point in our history.

God help us.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

We are at that point in our history.

God help us.
TheDarkKnight

I’d argue that people figured it out decades ago.. we’ve just been to asleep to notice and have been convinced it was the charitable / American thing to do…

We’re well past the point of people realizing they can vote themselves money .. we’re reached the point where everyone is now wondering where their ‘cut’ is.
TheDarkKnight

I’d argue that people figured it out decades ago.. we’ve just been to asleep to notice and have been convinced it was the charitable / American thing to do…

We’re well past the point of people realizing they can vote themselves money .. we’re reached the point where everyone is now wondering where their ‘cut’ is.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

This is true. I’m afraid we are at that point in our history.

This sounds a lot like a Ben Franklin quote.

Is it??
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

This is true. I’m afraid we are at that point in our history.

This sounds a lot like a Ben Franklin quote.

Is it??

Anonymous

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. “
Anonymous

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. “
Anonymous

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. “
Anonymous

Maybe the solution is to only allow people with a zero or positive tax balance a vote plus military veterans.

Only those who contribute get a say. The rest get handouts but do not get to determine how this country is run.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I hope you’re kidding.

The answer is what Art Laffer has suggested: A low rate flat tax. Everybody pays something. No loopholes.

gfchicago

Art Laffer is correct… However I would take it one step further… Fair Tax… Effeminate the IRS completely and have nothing but a consumption tax… Then everyone that bought anything new would all be taxed the same…

Set it up as Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz outlined in their book with everyone getting a 23% prebate for food and such, and we would have a winner… The illegals would be paying their share as well as the drug dealers, prostitutes and every other low life…

Then we would truly have a fair tax system… No one would escape it.

Then we as individuals can control what we are paying those bozos in Washington.
gfchicago

Art Laffer is correct… However I would take it one step further… Fair Tax… Effeminate the IRS completely and have nothing but a consumption tax… Then everyone that bought anything new would all be taxed the same…

Set it up as Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz outlined in their book with everyone getting a 23% prebate for food and such, and we would have a winner… The illegals would be paying their share as well as the drug dealers, prostitutes and every other low life…

Then we would truly have a fair tax system… No one would escape it.

Then we as individuals can control what we are paying those bozos in Washington.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Fair Tax is a messy proposition. Too many loopholes that could end up costing us a lot more in taxes.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Fair Tax is a messy proposition. Too many loopholes that could end up costing us a lot more in taxes.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Fair Tax is a messy proposition. Too many loopholes that could end up costing us a lot more in taxes.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I hope you’re kidding.

The answer is what Art Laffer has suggested: A low rate flat tax. Everybody pays something. No loopholes.

Anonymous

Maybe the solution is to only allow people with a zero or positive tax balance a vote plus military veterans.

Only those who contribute get a say. The rest get handouts but do not get to determine how this country is run.
Anonymous

Maybe the solution is to only allow people with a zero or positive tax balance a vote plus military veterans.

Only those who contribute get a say. The rest get handouts but do not get to determine how this country is run.

Anonymous

Looking at the three charts also reveals that government tax revenue is much more tied to the state of the economy than the tax rate.

The economy was very good during the 1990′s, in large part because government spending was controlled, and there was steady growth in tax revenue.

Tax rates stayed the same from 2000 to 2003, but the dot-com bust followed by the 9/11 recession did major damage. The economy recovered when? After the Bush tax cuts! Which created another high-growth period and all time highs in government revenue until the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and everything went to hell.

Lessons? Low taxes and responsible government spending create a favorable growth environment. Also, changes in the tax code are much more effective than government stimulus spending to jumpstart a weak economy. Of course, conservatives have known this all along, and liberals, believing the opposite, and poison to the economy.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By your logic, the economy should have at least stabilized in 2001.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

However, unemployment continued to rise, after the tax cuts.

The only thing that really occurred from 2003-2005 was a housing bubble, brought on by low interest rates, and large amounts of free capital due to tax cuts on the wealthy.

So you have to decide, do you want a boom and bust from cutting tax rates, or do you want sustainable growth brought on by responsible economic principles?

Even more so, tax rates have very little impact on unemployment rate, as looked at historically.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Look from 1948 on. Periods of 90% tax rate, and unemployment fluctuates rather than staying high. And actually, as we ramp down from high tax rates, the average unemployment actually climbs (1970 to 1982). There were other factors that may have led to high unemployment, but there definitely is no correlation between cutting taxes and unemployment declining.

Anonymous

$1.5 trillion in economic damage due to 9-11. The fact you ignore it shows you are incapable of discussing anything honestly.

From 6-03 til 6-07 unemployment dropped per your chart. What happened in 2007? Oh yes, the Democratic Party took the purse strings of the government in January 2007.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By your logic, the economy should have at least stabilized in 2001.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

However, unemployment continued to rise, after the tax cuts.

The only thing that really occurred from 2003-2005 was a housing bubble, brought on by low interest rates, and large amounts of free capital due to tax cuts on the wealthy.

So you have to decide, do you want a boom and bust from cutting tax rates, or do you want sustainable growth brought on by responsible economic principles?

Even more so, tax rates have very little impact on unemployment rate, as looked at historically.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Look from 1948 on. Periods of 90% tax rate, and unemployment fluctuates rather than staying high. And actually, as we ramp down from high tax rates, the average unemployment actually climbs (1970 to 1982). There were other factors that may have led to high unemployment, but there definitely is no correlation between cutting taxes and unemployment declining.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yep, that’s exactly what happens, the revenue rates vary based on how the economy is doing, but don’t vary much based on the tax rate. There’s a slight increase in revenue from cutting taxes and a slight decrease from raising them, but mostly its how the economy is going that drives tax revenues.

But since that violates the left’s most precious narrative about taxes and the economy, you get idiots like Browning below trying desperately to spin away the facts.

Anonymous

Dare talk about fairness without exposing the reality?

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.[13]

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]

Referemces here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Head in the sand? And the worsening of the situation since 2000 due to the Bush taxcuts. Want to argue?
Anonymous

Dare talk about fairness without exposing the reality?

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.[13]

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]

Referemces here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Head in the sand? And the worsening of the situation since 2000 due to the Bush taxcuts. Want to argue?
Anonymous

Dare talk about fairness without exposing the reality?

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.[13]

According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]

Referemces here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Head in the sand? And the worsening of the situation since 2000 due to the Bush taxcuts. Want to argue?

Anonymous

It is very strange that many people do not choose to become part of the ownership society.

The key word is; choose.

Anonymous

Bring it on (Bush)!
Anonymous

Bring it on (Bush)!

Anonymous

So you have nothing to debate, are you going to pose a statement?
Anonymous

So you have nothing to debate, are you going to pose a statement?
Anonymous

So you have nothing to debate, are you going to pose a statement?

Anonymous

It is very strange that many people do not choose to become part of the ownership society.

The key word is; choose.
Anonymous

It is very strange that many people do not choose to become part of the ownership society.

The key word is; choose.
StanW

YAAAAAAAAWN!
StanW

YAAAAAAAAWN!
StanW

YAAAAAAAAWN!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So the reality is you’re too fucking lazy to make your own wealth, so you think the government should take it from those who work their asses off.

That’s all you sell class envy from the basement of your mommies house, because you refuse to get a job.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So the reality is you’re too fucking lazy to make your own wealth, so you think the government should take it from those who work their asses off.

That’s all you sell class envy from the basement of your mommies house, because you refuse to get a job.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So the reality is you’re too fucking lazy to make your own wealth, so you think the government should take it from those who work their asses off.

That’s all you sell class envy from the basement of your mommies house, because you refuse to get a job.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So the reality is you’re too fucking lazy to make your own wealth, so you think the government should take it from those who work their asses off.

That’s all you sell class envy from the basement of your mommies house, because you refuse to get a job.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So the reality is you’re too fucking lazy to make your own wealth, so you think the government should take it from those who work their asses off.

That’s all you sell class envy from the basement of your mommies house, because you refuse to get a job.

Anonymous

We need a flat tax rate that hits everyone that increases in increments as you get so many standard deviations above the median. (so let’s say 10% then add half that for every stdev you get above average: 15% for one, 20% for the next and so on, just for example).

The stdevs, the median, the rate of increase would all be adjusted mathematically every year according to current earning stats and would not be subject to political interference.

The only thing that could ever be adjusted is the flat rate (so it can be raised to say 12% if we get in another war or whatever). That would still hit the rich disproportionately but no one earning a living would be entirely exempt. When they talk about raising taxes for everyone that increase would hit everyone (not the same but no one could be exempted entirely). I think that would be more fair and would indicate shared sacrifice more than “tax the rich!”.

Ideally the flat rate would simply be derived from last year to cover all expenses plus some amount to start paying down the debt, so we cannot run a deficit for more than one year.
Anonymous

We need a flat tax rate that hits everyone that increases in increments as you get so many standard deviations above the median. (so let’s say 10% then add half that for every stdev you get above average: 15% for one, 20% for the next and so on, just for example).

The stdevs, the median, the rate of increase would all be adjusted mathematically every year according to current earning stats and would not be subject to political interference.

The only thing that could ever be adjusted is the flat rate (so it can be raised to say 12% if we get in another war or whatever). That would still hit the rich disproportionately but no one earning a living would be entirely exempt. When they talk about raising taxes for everyone that increase would hit everyone (not the same but no one could be exempted entirely). I think that would be more fair and would indicate shared sacrifice more than “tax the rich!”.

Ideally the flat rate would simply be derived from last year to cover all expenses plus some amount to start paying down the debt, so we cannot run a deficit for more than one year.
Anonymous

We need a flat tax rate that hits everyone that increases in increments as you get so many standard deviations above the median. (so let’s say 10% then add half that for every stdev you get above average: 15% for one, 20% for the next and so on, just for example).

The stdevs, the median, the rate of increase would all be adjusted mathematically every year according to current earning stats and would not be subject to political interference.

The only thing that could ever be adjusted is the flat rate (so it can be raised to say 12% if we get in another war or whatever). That would still hit the rich disproportionately but no one earning a living would be entirely exempt. When they talk about raising taxes for everyone that increase would hit everyone (not the same but no one could be exempted entirely). I think that would be more fair and would indicate shared sacrifice more than “tax the rich!”.

Ideally the flat rate would simply be derived from last year to cover all expenses plus some amount to start paying down the debt, so we cannot run a deficit for more than one year.
Anonymous

We need a flat tax rate that hits everyone that increases in increments as you get so many standard deviations above the median. (so let’s say 10% then add half that for every stdev you get above average: 15% for one, 20% for the next and so on, just for example).

The stdevs, the median, the rate of increase would all be adjusted mathematically every year according to current earning stats and would not be subject to political interference.

The only thing that could ever be adjusted is the flat rate (so it can be raised to say 12% if we get in another war or whatever). That would still hit the rich disproportionately but no one earning a living would be entirely exempt. When they talk about raising taxes for everyone that increase would hit everyone (not the same but no one could be exempted entirely). I think that would be more fair and would indicate shared sacrifice more than “tax the rich!”.

Ideally the flat rate would simply be derived from last year to cover all expenses plus some amount to start paying down the debt, so we cannot run a deficit for more than one year.
Martin Hale

It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

This is a point which I think needs to be made over and over as we wrestle with this debate – raising income tax rates on the rich isn’t going to change the national finance picture a whole lot. The curve shown in the second chart stands as a stark reminder to even the most dedicated nanny-state collectivist, that barring widespread coercive threats of implied or real violence, people will configure their finances and their financial decision-making to optimise their economic relationship to government as seen from their perspective, not the government’s.

Besides, the problem we face isn’t so much on the revenue side – it’s on the expenditure and indebtedness side. There’s an 800-kilotonne gorilla waiting in the wings – $14.54T debt which is being increased by more than 10% annually. We all see it, and the vast majority of us say it’s bad. But apparently we’d rather fight a class holy war on tax strategies – a war which history has shown (as is demonstrated in chart two) is relatively pointless – than deal with the real problem which is spending. We can’t keep spending as we do and expect to survive economically – that’s the overarching fact which should be uniting us and occupying our attention.

Revenue-based solutions are not going to get us out of our current jam by themselves. We need to be arguing about expenditures first and then we can sort out how to pay for it. As leader, I would expect two things of Mr. Obama: 1) that he focus our attention first on the spending issues which lie at the heart of our problem; and 2) that he not take us down the path of class warfare on either issue. To date, I don’t think he’s done either.
Martin Hale

It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

This is a point which I think needs to be made over and over as we wrestle with this debate – raising income tax rates on the rich isn’t going to change the national finance picture a whole lot. The curve shown in the second chart stands as a stark reminder to even the most dedicated nanny-state collectivist, that barring widespread coercive threats of implied or real violence, people will configure their finances and their financial decision-making to optimise their economic relationship to government as seen from their perspective, not the government’s.

Besides, the problem we face isn’t so much on the revenue side – it’s on the expenditure and indebtedness side. There’s an 800-kilotonne gorilla waiting in the wings – $14.54T debt which is being increased by more than 10% annually. We all see it, and the vast majority of us say it’s bad. But apparently we’d rather fight a class holy war on tax strategies – a war which history has shown (as is demonstrated in chart two) is relatively pointless – than deal with the real problem which is spending. We can’t keep spending as we do and expect to survive economically – that’s the overarching fact which should be uniting us and occupying our attention.

Revenue-based solutions are not going to get us out of our current jam by themselves. We need to be arguing about expenditures first and then we can sort out how to pay for it. As leader, I would expect two things of Mr. Obama: 1) that he focus our attention first on the spending issues which lie at the heart of our problem; and 2) that he not take us down the path of class warfare on either issue. To date, I don’t think he’s done either.

Anonymous

It’s becoming harder and harder to refute the hypothesis that Obama and the radical left actually want an economic crash.

Obama has locked in trillion-dollar deficits, and proclaimed the usual people-dying-in-the-streets cataclysm if the budget is reduced by a single penny. Not even he is so blind to think that we can sustain this level of spending when the world’s appetite for American debt is now very small.

The world winks at each other during an upcoming debt auction, and that’s when we see the big interest rate spike that sets off the double dip and a major spike in inflation. That event will be the government’s last chance before we go into a hyperinflation spiral and a total meltdown.

Anonymous

The same thing was said when Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s. Somehow the wealthy were going to stop investing, right?

Didn’t happen.

Anonymous

Are you more likely to invest if you have, and are able to either:
1. Keep more of your own money?
2. Keep less of your own money?

You are only allowed 1 answer.
Anonymous

Are you more likely to invest if you have, and are able to either:
1. Keep more of your own money?
2. Keep less of your own money?

You are only allowed 1 answer.

Anonymous

(I’ll answer for you joe.)

Ohh, ohh I know this one…
Umm, it’s 2 isn’t it?
Anonymous

(I’ll answer for you joe.)

Ohh, ohh I know this one…
Umm, it’s 2 isn’t it?
TheDarkKnight

I think there’s a variable being left out of the equation…

I’d certainly be more willing to invest if I knew I had the ‘full faith and credit of the United States’ (read: the backs of the American taxpayer) to bail me out…

You know.. like has been done SO many times lately

Risk free? I’m in!
TheDarkKnight

I think there’s a variable being left out of the equation…

I’d certainly be more willing to invest if I knew I had the ‘full faith and credit of the United States’ (read: the backs of the American taxpayer) to bail me out…

You know.. like has been done SO many times lately

Risk free? I’m in!
TheDarkKnight

I think there’s a variable being left out of the equation…

I’d certainly be more willing to invest if I knew I had the ‘full faith and credit of the United States’ (read: the backs of the American taxpayer) to bail me out…

You know.. like has been done SO many times lately

Risk free? I’m in!
TheDarkKnight

I think there’s a variable being left out of the equation…

I’d certainly be more willing to invest if I knew I had the ‘full faith and credit of the United States’ (read: the backs of the American taxpayer) to bail me out…

You know.. like has been done SO many times lately

Risk free? I’m in!
Anonymous

(I’ll answer for you joe.)

Ohh, ohh I know this one…
Umm, it’s 2 isn’t it?

Anonymous

We also had a balanced budget and negligible inflation (thanks to Republicans).

Obama wants higher taxes, endless deficits, and crippling inflation so that the average American has no way to survive without bowing before the government for a handout.

Anonymous

You just never understood Reagan; Tip O’Neill did.

While we talk about Reaganomics, taxcuts for the rich that will trickle down (later repeated by Bush in spades), the truth is that Reagan tried to bust the budget by creating enormous federal deficits,(including wasteful spending on national defense: remember the useless WWII navy ships taken out of mothballs), Democrats would have to begin to dismantle our FDR liberal-socialist programs, those that keep people safe and alive.

The Democrats didn’t budge then and they won’t budge today.
Anonymous

You just never understood Reagan; Tip O’Neill did.

While we talk about Reaganomics, taxcuts for the rich that will trickle down (later repeated by Bush in spades), the truth is that Reagan tried to bust the budget by creating enormous federal deficits,(including wasteful spending on national defense: remember the useless WWII navy ships taken out of mothballs), Democrats would have to begin to dismantle our FDR liberal-socialist programs, those that keep people safe and alive.

The Democrats didn’t budge then and they won’t budge today.
Anonymous

Obama is not Reagan Joe. This is the Obama Recession. Flagged for lying and strawman argument.
Anonymous

Obama is not Reagan Joe. This is the Obama Recession. Flagged for lying and strawman argument.
Anonymous

Yeah, presidents control deficit spending. That is either incorrect or an out and out lie. Only Congress has the power of the purse strings. Reagan’s Democrat Congress ran up the deficit. Yes, he could have continually vetoed the legislation, but look how well Republicans fare when they are involved in a government shutdown.

Anonymous

We also had a balanced budget and negligible inflation (thanks to Republicans).

Obama wants higher taxes, endless deficits, and crippling inflation so that the average American has no way to survive without bowing before the government for a handout.
Anonymous

We also had a balanced budget and negligible inflation (thanks to Republicans).

Obama wants higher taxes, endless deficits, and crippling inflation so that the average American has no way to survive without bowing before the government for a handout.
Anonymous

We also had a balanced budget and negligible inflation (thanks to Republicans).

Obama wants higher taxes, endless deficits, and crippling inflation so that the average American has no way to survive without bowing before the government for a handout.
Anonymous

We also had a balanced budget and negligible inflation (thanks to Republicans).

Obama wants higher taxes, endless deficits, and crippling inflation so that the average American has no way to survive without bowing before the government for a handout.

Anonymous

The same thing was said when Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s. Somehow the wealthy were going to stop investing, right?

Didn’t happen.
Anonymous

The same thing was said when Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s. Somehow the wealthy were going to stop investing, right?

Didn’t happen.

Anonymous

It’s becoming harder and harder to refute the hypothesis that Obama and the radical left actually want an economic crash.

Obama has locked in trillion-dollar deficits, and proclaimed the usual people-dying-in-the-streets cataclysm if the budget is reduced by a single penny. Not even he is so blind to think that we can sustain this level of spending when the world’s appetite for American debt is now very small.

The world winks at each other during an upcoming debt auction, and that’s when we see the big interest rate spike that sets off the double dip and a major spike in inflation. That event will be the government’s last chance before we go into a hyperinflation spiral and a total meltdown.
Anonymous

It’s becoming harder and harder to refute the hypothesis that Obama and the radical left actually want an economic crash.

Obama has locked in trillion-dollar deficits, and proclaimed the usual people-dying-in-the-streets cataclysm if the budget is reduced by a single penny. Not even he is so blind to think that we can sustain this level of spending when the world’s appetite for American debt is now very small.

The world winks at each other during an upcoming debt auction, and that’s when we see the big interest rate spike that sets off the double dip and a major spike in inflation. That event will be the government’s last chance before we go into a hyperinflation spiral and a total meltdown.
Anonymous

Hidden behind those charts is a financial crisis, the result of the past 30 years of invalid and deceptive economic principles.

Repeat after me: Reaganomics is dead. It is exactly what put and is putting our economy into crisis mode. You can pull out as many graphs as you wish, but as all of them merely reflect the result of taxcuts for the rich, Bush’s term for Reaganomics, they are meaningless and hide financial doom. What they say on this site is, let’s continue the same behavior that created the mess, because it’s only fair.

Anonymous

So the government financial crisis has nothing to do with too much spending?

Got any proof of that being so?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

It is. Obama killed it. How are you liking the results?
Anonymous

Are you completely unaware of the Carter, Johnson, Truman and Roosevelt administrations an the social engineering they did to bring us to this point? Are you aware that Reagan brought us out of the Carter malaise? Are you aware that government spending exploded in Roosevelt era and Truman, Johnson and Carter all compounded his error? What a clueless tool you are.

Anonymous

Hidden behind those charts is a financial crisis, the result of the past 30 years of invalid and deceptive economic principles.

Repeat after me: Reaganomics is dead. It is exactly what put and is putting our economy into crisis mode. You can pull out as many graphs as you wish, but as all of them merely reflect the result of taxcuts for the rich, Bush’s term for Reaganomics, they are meaningless and hide financial doom. What they say on this site is, let’s continue the same behavior that created the mess, because it’s only fair.
Anonymous

Hidden behind those charts is a financial crisis, the result of the past 30 years of invalid and deceptive economic principles.

Repeat after me: Reaganomics is dead. It is exactly what put and is putting our economy into crisis mode. You can pull out as many graphs as you wish, but as all of them merely reflect the result of taxcuts for the rich, Bush’s term for Reaganomics, they are meaningless and hide financial doom. What they say on this site is, let’s continue the same behavior that created the mess, because it’s only fair.

Martin Hale

It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

This is a point which I think needs to be made over and over as we wrestle with this debate – raising income tax rates on the rich isn’t going to change the national finance picture a whole lot. The curve shown in the second chart stands as a stark reminder to even the most dedicated nanny-state collectivist, that barring widespread coercive threats of implied or real violence, people will configure their finances and their financial decision-making to optimise their economic relationship to government as seen from their perspective, not the government’s.

Besides, the problem we face isn’t so much on the revenue side – it’s on the expenditure and indebtedness side. There’s an 800-kilotonne gorilla waiting in the wings – $14.54T debt which is being increased by more than 10% annually. We all see it, and the vast majority of us say it’s bad. But apparently we’d rather fight a class holy war on tax strategies – a war which history has shown (as is demonstrated in chart two) is relatively pointless – than deal with the real problem which is spending. We can’t keep spending as we do and expect to survive economically – that’s the overarching fact which should be uniting us and occupying our attention.

Revenue-based solutions are not going to get us out of our current jam by themselves. We need to be arguing about expenditures first and then we can sort out how to pay for it. As leader, I would expect two things of Mr. Obama: 1) that he focus our attention first on the spending issues which lie at the heart of our problem; and 2) that he not take us down the path of class warfare on either issue. To date, I don’t think he’s done either.
Martin Hale

It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

This is a point which I think needs to be made over and over as we wrestle with this debate – raising income tax rates on the rich isn’t going to change the national finance picture a whole lot. The curve shown in the second chart stands as a stark reminder to even the most dedicated nanny-state collectivist, that barring widespread coercive threats of implied or real violence, people will configure their finances and their financial decision-making to optimise their economic relationship to government as seen from their perspective, not the government’s.

Besides, the problem we face isn’t so much on the revenue side – it’s on the expenditure and indebtedness side. There’s an 800-kilotonne gorilla waiting in the wings – $14.54T debt which is being increased by more than 10% annually. We all see it, and the vast majority of us say it’s bad. But apparently we’d rather fight a class holy war on tax strategies – a war which history has shown (as is demonstrated in chart two) is relatively pointless – than deal with the real problem which is spending. We can’t keep spending as we do and expect to survive economically – that’s the overarching fact which should be uniting us and occupying our attention.

Revenue-based solutions are not going to get us out of our current jam by themselves. We need to be arguing about expenditures first and then we can sort out how to pay for it. As leader, I would expect two things of Mr. Obama: 1) that he focus our attention first on the spending issues which lie at the heart of our problem; and 2) that he not take us down the path of class warfare on either issue. To date, I don’t think he’s done either.
Anonymous

Joe, I’ll make this pure and simple for you, what would you like for yourself and others:
1. More slavery
2. More freedoms
You can only pick 1.
Anonymous

Joe, I’ll make this pure and simple for you, what would you like for yourself and others:
1. More slavery
2. More freedoms
You can only pick 1.

TheDarkKnight

I’ll take #2 for $1,000 Alecs

Anonymous

lol, dark,

I knew joe wouldn’t answer.
Anonymous

lol, dark,

I knew joe wouldn’t answer.
Anonymous

lol, dark,

I knew joe wouldn’t answer.
Anonymous

lol, dark,

I knew joe wouldn’t answer.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The debate is really about that, but a way to put it that people will respond well to is this, I believe:

Which would you rather cut, your budget, or the federal government’s budget? Because those are the only two choices.

Anonymous

Joe, I’ll make this pure and simple for you, what would you like for yourself and others:
1. More slavery
2. More freedoms
You can only pick 1.
Anonymous

Joe, I’ll make this pure and simple for you, what would you like for yourself and others:
1. More slavery
2. More freedoms
You can only pick 1.
Pingback: Train - Hey Soul Sister Lyrics | musicartikel.com
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By the way, thanks to everyone that flagged my post yesterday that brought up opposing viewpoints with linked sources.

Glad to see the rightwing suppression machine rolling along like usual.

Anonymous

Email Hawkins Danny. you can send him redacted copies of your tax returns like Nixon asked for 6 months ago.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

I emailed him. He didn’t care.

Anonymous

Nixon never saw the email.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That would be because you’re not Hawkins?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That would be because you’re not Hawkins?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That would be because you’re not Hawkins?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That would be because you’re not Hawkins?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

That would be because you’re not Hawkins?
Anonymous

Nixon never saw the email.
Anonymous

Nixon never saw the email.

Anonymous

Email Hawkins Danny. you can send him redacted copies of your tax returns like Nixon asked for 6 months ago.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By the way, thanks to everyone that flagged my post yesterday that brought up opposing viewpoints with linked sources.

Glad to see the rightwing suppression machine rolling along like usual.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By the way, thanks to everyone that flagged my post yesterday that brought up opposing viewpoints with linked sources.

Glad to see the rightwing suppression machine rolling along like usual.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By the way, thanks to everyone that flagged my post yesterday that brought up opposing viewpoints with linked sources.

Glad to see the rightwing suppression machine rolling along like usual.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

By the way, thanks to everyone that flagged my post yesterday that brought up opposing viewpoints with linked sources.

Glad to see the rightwing suppression machine rolling along like usual.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

We went through this in a thread yesterday as well.

Your first graph shows income tax only, which is 40% of the revenue, and doesn’t include the taxes paid by payroll taxes, or other taxes, such as gasoline taxes, which take considerably more of a poor person’s income than a rich person’s income.

It also doesn’t show that those same people paying most of the taxes take home almost all the capital gains income, which is only taxed at 15%, leaving them with yet more money to make more income.
http://profiles.google.com/jeffj1120 Jeff Johnson

Another way to look at widening gaps between the haves vs the have-nots: “…the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.”
(this is from a 2007 post in the NYTimes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Anonymous

Instead of “received” use the word “earned”. Than you’ll be accurate.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

You mean like the Wall Street housewives that got free money from the government?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411

Whole lot of “earning” going on there.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

You mean like the Wall Street housewives that got free money from the government?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411

Whole lot of “earning” going on there.

Anonymous

flagged for threadjacking. Your attempted spin is noted. Guess you and joebritton have a lot in common, like your ISP.

Anonymous

Dick stop claiming that you work; you’re here too much of the day to be able to hold down a job.
Anonymous

Dick stop claiming that you work; you’re here too much of the day to be able to hold down a job.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Oh he works alright. He works at “flooding out the leftwing bias in mainstream media”.

Craigslist jobs at their finest.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Oh he works alright. He works at “flooding out the leftwing bias in mainstream media”.

Craigslist jobs at their finest.
Anonymous

Self employment is a good thing peasant. And Danny, can you link where that quoted phrase has anything to do w Nixon?

Joe, as a poor person by choice, does it hurt when you look in the mirror everyday knowing you will never amount to anything in this world?
Anonymous

Self employment is a good thing peasant. And Danny, can you link where that quoted phrase has anything to do w Nixon?

Joe, as a poor person by choice, does it hurt when you look in the mirror everyday knowing you will never amount to anything in this world?
Anonymous

Self employment is a good thing peasant. And Danny, can you link where that quoted phrase has anything to do w Nixon?

Joe, as a poor person by choice, does it hurt when you look in the mirror everyday knowing you will never amount to anything in this world?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Then prove that’s not your job Dick.

Should be pretty easy, considering you’re a wealthy self employed business owner and all.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Then prove that’s not your job Dick.

Should be pretty easy, considering you’re a wealthy self employed business owner and all.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Then prove that’s not your job Dick.

Should be pretty easy, considering you’re a wealthy self employed business owner and all.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Then prove that’s not your job Dick.

Should be pretty easy, considering you’re a wealthy self employed business owner and all.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Then prove that’s not your job Dick.

Should be pretty easy, considering you’re a wealthy self employed business owner and all.
Anonymous

And you would know how?

Oh, that’s right you can’t hold down a job either.

And, you’re PROUD of that fact.
Anonymous

Coming from a person who sells their own blood ot buy food, that is pretty funny. Nixon would throw you a twenty if were panhandling on his street Joe. if you begged.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

You mean as opposed to your attempt at spin?

You flag yourself too there Dick?
Anonymous

Flagged for trolling.
Anonymous

Flagged for trolling.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Couple months go bye, and Dick forgets Hawkins warnings about flagging.

I responded to your attempts at spin by posting a counterpoint. Don’t want me responding like that, don’t try to spin his comment.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Couple months go bye, and Dick forgets Hawkins warnings about flagging.

I responded to your attempts at spin by posting a counterpoint. Don’t want me responding like that, don’t try to spin his comment.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Couple months go bye, and Dick forgets Hawkins warnings about flagging.

I responded to your attempts at spin by posting a counterpoint. Don’t want me responding like that, don’t try to spin his comment.
Anonymous

Email Hawkins about Nixon Danny. Free country, you have a complaint, go on record. Post a copy of your email here if you have the balls to.

Those top earners were not given their money, they earned it. Something you and Joe don’t understand.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

You mean as opposed to your attempt at spin?

You flag yourself too there Dick?

Anonymous

flagged for threadjacking. Your attempted spin is noted. Guess you and joebritton have a lot in common, like your ISP.

Anonymous

Dick, when you send your money out there to work for you, while lazing on a beach in the Cayman Islands, I would have to say “received” is about as polite as it gets. There’s no work going on except by brokers. Earned is deceptive. Cut it.

Anonymous

Nixon doesn’t go to foreign places Joe. Nixon is too busy working these days making money to pay employees, invest, and to support Nixon’s lifestyle. No government handouts for Nixon, just the fruit of Nixon’s labor.

You should try work sometime Joe. It builds character. And improves your bank balance.
Anonymous

Nixon doesn’t go to foreign places Joe. Nixon is too busy working these days making money to pay employees, invest, and to support Nixon’s lifestyle. No government handouts for Nixon, just the fruit of Nixon’s labor.

You should try work sometime Joe. It builds character. And improves your bank balance.
Anonymous

Nixon doesn’t go to foreign places Joe. Nixon is too busy working these days making money to pay employees, invest, and to support Nixon’s lifestyle. No government handouts for Nixon, just the fruit of Nixon’s labor.

You should try work sometime Joe. It builds character. And improves your bank balance.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah, but you’ll never get a leftist to figure that out. They think rich people lay around and money rains down on them.

Anonymous

And we all know how fair and unbiased the Old Grey Lady is.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

I’m going to put this out there, and see if anyone can answer it. Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment. Businesses are recording record profits. If we cut spending, unemployment will most like increase to 10% unemployment, further reducing demand at businesses.

1. What about the spending cuts will induce businesses to hire?
2. For those that are released from government jobs due to spending cuts, which private sector businesses will they be able to readily find work in?
3. With that increased unemployment, how do we offset the additional revenue loss from the unemployed, not even counting the additional spending due to support the now unemployed?
4. What reason will businesses have to keep employees on that deal with government compliance, if the spending cut removes governmental agencies (e.g. OSHA/EPA)?
5. For those let go due to reduced governmental compliance, where will they find jobs?
6. Where will the additional demand come from to cause businesses to hire, with a loss of revenue due to higher unemployment, and a loss of demand due to less government spending?
7. What incentives are there to put profits to work, rather than simply putting them back into the hands of the shareholders, who then purchase government debt to receive additional income?

StanW

“If we cut spending, unemployment will most like increase to 10% unemployment, further reducing demand at businesses.”

Because you intital premise above is at best overstated and at most a complete lie, your questions are completely invalid and not worth the time to read or answer.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Nice try dodging Stan. You’re trying to tell me that cutting the federal budget won’t result in job losses?

In what alternate world do you live in where a business cutting back on its budget not result in job losses?

Even the speaker has accepted that cuts will result in job losses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-usa-budget-boehner-idUSTRE71E64I20110215

StanW

Until you provide proof that cutting the federal budget will result in job losses, then your initial premise is flawed. Therefore all the rest you have built upon that flawed premise is equally flawed.

Any business can cut budget in hundreds of ways that does not equate to job losses.

That is not a dodge, SWINE, but simple and basic logic.
StanW

Until you provide proof that cutting the federal budget will result in job losses, then your initial premise is flawed. Therefore all the rest you have built upon that flawed premise is equally flawed.

Any business can cut budget in hundreds of ways that does not equate to job losses.

That is not a dodge, SWINE, but simple and basic logic.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

300,000 jobs lost last time the Republicans took an axe to the budget. Stop dodging.
StanW

No proof, so no dodge.
StanW

No proof, so no dodge.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Sure Stan. I offered up links that show that government payroll declined when budget cuts were enacted.

I could offer up people saying “I lost my job due to government cuts” and you’d still say it wasn’t proof.

You’re nothing but a rightwing talking point that won’t dare to address the tough questions I put forth.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Sure Stan. I offered up links that show that government payroll declined when budget cuts were enacted.

I could offer up people saying “I lost my job due to government cuts” and you’d still say it wasn’t proof.

You’re nothing but a rightwing talking point that won’t dare to address the tough questions I put forth.
StanW

As I said below, those were DEAD LINKS, so I could not verify anything from them.

your questions were based upon a flase premise, and all you have given us as proof is “Because I Said So”.

So you lose and your lose BIG. Stop posting while you still have a few living brain cells.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Sure Stan. I offered up links that show that government payroll declined when budget cuts were enacted.

I could offer up people saying “I lost my job due to government cuts” and you’d still say it wasn’t proof.

You’re nothing but a rightwing talking point that won’t dare to address the tough questions I put forth.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Links work for me Stan. Maybe you should try again.
StanW

I did, they don’t. You are a liar and a fraud, and I am bored pointing out your logical fallacies.

You may now talk to yourself, SWINE. I am done here!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Stan, DISQUS was appending the ) to the link. I added a space so the link was correct, since you couldn’t figure out on your own to remove the ).

So try again. Since they work now.

Or keep saying they don’t work, so everyone knows you’re just a talking point that doesn’t engage in real debate.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Stan, DISQUS was appending the ) to the link. I added a space so the link was correct, since you couldn’t figure out on your own to remove the ).

So try again. Since they work now.

Or keep saying they don’t work, so everyone knows you’re just a talking point that doesn’t engage in real debate.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

300,000 jobs lost last time the Republicans took an axe to the budget. Stop dodging.

Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If we reduce spending by $100B, we’ll still go bankrupt.

The current budget proposals are just shams.

We need both spending cuts across the board and targeted revenue increases.
Anonymous

“If we reduce spending by $100B, we’ll still go bankrupt.”

Yea, you now see the problem. The solution is then to reduce spending further than $100 billion like closer to a trillion.

Go back and take some basic math classes.
Anonymous

Thankfully Paul Ryan has proposed reducing spending by multiple trillions of dollars.
Anonymous

To Dick Nixon, the impersonator.

Ryan has just bene laughed out of every community meeting he has attended to sell his Medicare snake oil. It is even worse than Bush’s campaign to privitize social security. You can fool all of the people all of the time, but not forever, Dick.
Anonymous

To Dick Nixon, the impersonator.

Ryan has just bene laughed out of every community meeting he has attended to sell his Medicare snake oil. It is even worse than Bush’s campaign to privitize social security. You can fool all of the people all of the time, but not forever, Dick.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If we reduce spending by $100B, we’ll still go bankrupt.

The current budget proposals are just shams.

We need both spending cuts across the board and targeted revenue increases.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

If we reduce spending by $100B, we’ll still go bankrupt.

The current budget proposals are just shams.

We need both spending cuts across the board and targeted revenue increases.

Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.
Anonymous

And if we don’t reduce spending we will go bankrupt.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Nice try dodging Stan. You’re trying to tell me that cutting the federal budget won’t result in job losses?

In what alternate world do you live in where a business cutting back on its budget not result in job losses?

Even the speaker has accepted that cuts will result in job losses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-usa-budget-boehner-idUSTRE71E64I20110215
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

And since you’re not a student of history, here’s what happened last time we cut spending.

1994: 2.951 million jobs (http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/94fedfun.txt)
1995: 2.895 million jobs
(http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/95fedfun.txt)
1996: 2.688 million jobs
(http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/96fedst.txt)

Nearly 300,000 jobs lost. Nope, that won’t affect unemployment.

StanW

First, none of those links go anywhere. Imagine my surprise.

Second, even assumming they are true, you have offered no proof that the job losses were due to spending cuts alone. Nor did you specify what spending was cut to cause the job loses.

I understand that you have made an moronic and erroneous statement, and feel the need to defend it. You learned your lesson from Vega very well. However, you shoudl know that I will not simply allow you to lie and then get away with it.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Let’s see, what happened in 1995? Oh right, the federal budget was cut.

Dodge dodge dodge Stan.

Keep living in your fantasy world where cuts to government spending don’t result in job losses.
StanW

SWINE, I know you beleive it to be true, and that you are willing to use insults, but I require more proof that a simple “Because I Said So” from noted liars like you and D-Vega.

Even if I were to accept the fact that spending was cut and jobs were lost, you have made no attempt whatsoever to prove that the former caused the latter.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
Anonymous

So what? Having too many government employees and bureaucrats is not necessarily a good thing Danny.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Answer the questions then Dick. If you add more workers to the unemployment rolls, how is that going to help the economy improve?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Answer the questions then Dick. If you add more workers to the unemployment rolls, how is that going to help the economy improve?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Answer the questions then Dick. If you add more workers to the unemployment rolls, how is that going to help the economy improve?
Anonymous

Can you spend your way out of debt?

If you can not, than how can you expect the government to?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Either answer the questions, or stop trying to derail Spikey.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Either answer the questions, or stop trying to derail Spikey.

StanW

First, none of those links go anywhere. Imagine my surprise.

Second, even assumming they are true, you have offered no proof that the job losses were due to spending cuts alone. Nor did you specify what spending was cut to cause the job loses.

I understand that you have made an moronic and erroneous statement, and feel the need to defend it. You learned your lesson from Vega very well. However, you shoudl know that I will not simply allow you to lie and then get away with it.
Anonymous

Since you are not a student of history here is a list of what happens under socialism:

North Korea
Cuba
Pol Pot – Cambodia
Mao Zedong – China

etc…

Financial catastrophe with millions of innocent deaths included at no extra. charge.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

How about we respond to the questions rather than spinning and threadjacking by bringing up socialism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I propose?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

How about we respond to the questions rather than spinning and threadjacking by bringing up socialism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I propose?
Anonymous

Government spending in the US is typically for socialism, so it is on topic.

BTW – you spun it first to stan, I just threw it back at you and it appears to of stuck.
Anonymous

Government spending in the US is typically for socialism, so it is on topic.

BTW – you spun it first to stan, I just threw it back at you and it appears to of stuck.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Neither of you is willing to answer the questions at hand, attempting to try and discredit the post rather than responding to it.

Why? Because you can’t actually respond to it.

You don’t have any talking points to use with it.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You’ve never answered any of our questions but you expect us to answer?? ROFLMAO
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

How about we respond to the questions rather than spinning and threadjacking by bringing up socialism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I propose?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

And since you’re not a student of history, here’s what happened last time we cut spending.

1994: 2.951 million jobs (http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/94fedfun.txt)
1995: 2.895 million jobs
(http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/95fedfun.txt)
1996: 2.688 million jobs
(http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/96fedst.txt)

Nearly 300,000 jobs lost. Nope, that won’t affect unemployment.

StanW

“If we cut spending, unemployment will most like increase to 10% unemployment, further reducing demand at businesses.”

Because you intital premise above is at best overstated and at most a complete lie, your questions are completely invalid and not worth the time to read or answer.
Anonymous

Wow you made it all the way to the 2nd sentience before the lies started coming out, then they just continue.

2nd sentence lie: “Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment”

The BSL numbers are bullshat – for they do not account for people that have given up looking for a job etc… What they also fails to note are the people that are no longer able to qualify for UI due to length of time on UI.

The number of unemployed is actually much higher than stated by BSL.

3rd sentence lie: “Businesses are recording record profits”

Many are also failing and some are holding their own, 1 sector can do well and another can do badly now financials are doing well and the housing sector is still doing poorly.

So a complete lie.

I will not even go and bash the rest of your post for of the first three sentences, two were lies.
Anonymous

Wow you made it all the way to the 2nd sentience before the lies started coming out, then they just continue.

2nd sentence lie: “Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment”

The BSL numbers are bullshat – for they do not account for people that have given up looking for a job etc… What they also fails to note are the people that are no longer able to qualify for UI due to length of time on UI.

The number of unemployed is actually much higher than stated by BSL.

3rd sentence lie: “Businesses are recording record profits”

Many are also failing and some are holding their own, 1 sector can do well and another can do badly now financials are doing well and the housing sector is still doing poorly.

So a complete lie.

I will not even go and bash the rest of your post for of the first three sentences, two were lies.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

Dodge dodge dodge from another talking point.

Who cares if the BSL numbers are bad? So we go from 14% to 15% when you layoff government workers. Point remains, government workers get laid off, how does that translate to businesses hiring?

Take out businesses are recording record profits. Doesn’t change the fact the questions still remain.

Is there anyone on this board who is not a walking talking point that wants to man up and answer the questions?

Anonymous

If you quit it with the lies, people will take you a bit more seriously.

Till then I got nothing to say – unless you pose a question or a statement that is not a lie. If the question or statement is a lie to begin with, I will expose it for what it is – a lie.
Anonymous

If you quit it with the lies, people will take you a bit more seriously.

Till then I got nothing to say – unless you pose a question or a statement that is not a lie. If the question or statement is a lie to begin with, I will expose it for what it is – a lie.
Anonymous

If you quit it with the lies, people will take you a bit more seriously.

Till then I got nothing to say – unless you pose a question or a statement that is not a lie. If the question or statement is a lie to begin with, I will expose it for what it is – a lie.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

I lied about nothing there. You just attempted to deflect by calling it a lie rather than answer the questions.

BLS reports 9%. Whether or not you choose to accept that is the real unemployment rate is up to you.

“Businesses are recording record profits” is also not a lie, as you yourself indicate. I don’t say “All businesses are recording record profits”.

So, once again, answer the questions, stop trying to derail, and actually discuss politics for once.
Anonymous

So you are admitting that only some businesses are recording record profits and also the BLS numbers are not the true unemployment numbers.

BLS numbers are a lot like the governments inflation numbers which btw exclude; food and fuel – lol – just too funny, for food and fuel are only the “drivers” of people and machines.
Anonymous

So you are admitting that only some businesses are recording record profits and also the BLS numbers are not the true unemployment numbers.

BLS numbers are a lot like the governments inflation numbers which btw exclude; food and fuel – lol – just too funny, for food and fuel are only the “drivers” of people and machines.

Anonymous

Wow you made it all the way to the 2nd sentience before the lies started coming out, then they just continue.

2nd sentence lie: “Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment”

The BSL numbers are bullshat – for they do not account for people that have given up looking for a job etc… What they also fails to note are the people that are no longer able to qualify for UI due to length of time on UI.

The number of unemployed is actually much higher than stated by BSL.

3rd sentence lie: “Businesses are recording record profits”

Many are also failing and some are holding their own, 1 sector can do well and another can do badly now financials are doing well and the housing sector is still doing poorly.

So a complete lie.

I will not even go and bash the rest of your post for of the first three sentences, two were lies.
Anonymous

Wow you made it all the way to the 2nd sentience before the lies started coming out, then they just continue.

2nd sentence lie: “Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment”

The BSL numbers are bullshat – for they do not account for people that have given up looking for a job etc… What they also fails to note are the people that are no longer able to qualify for UI due to length of time on UI.

The number of unemployed is actually much higher than stated by BSL.

3rd sentence lie: “Businesses are recording record profits”

Many are also failing and some are holding their own, 1 sector can do well and another can do badly now financials are doing well and the housing sector is still doing poorly.

So a complete lie.

I will not even go and bash the rest of your post for of the first three sentences, two were lies.
Anonymous

Wow you made it all the way to the 2nd sentience before the lies started coming out, then they just continue.

2nd sentence lie: “Right now, we’re sitting at 9% unemployment”

The BSL numbers are bullshat – for they do not account for people that have given up looking for a job etc… What they also fails to note are the people that are no longer able to qualify for UI due to length of time on UI.

The number of unemployed is actually much higher than stated by BSL.

3rd sentence lie: “Businesses are recording record profits”

Many are also failing and some are holding their own, 1 sector can do well and another can do badly now financials are doing well and the housing sector is still doing poorly.

So a complete lie.

I will not even go and bash the rest of your post for of the first three sentences, two were lies.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Who’s gonna have their budget cut, you or the government? Make your choice.

Pingback: The Basics For Why Do Men Cheat | Cheating Partner
Anonymous

@Joebritton

Workers are viewed as tools by the wealthy and corporations, to be used and then cast aside when no longer useful.

Tools are assets, joe, and companies must treat them as such in order to keep the best ones. Successful companies promote the growth and development of their employees -honing the efficiency of their tools.

Tools are cast aside when government steps in and makes the price of keeping your tools too much to bear..
Pingback: Soul Sister, lyrics, music, Train, Single, one of my kind, soul sister, virgin, love connection, single thing, madonna, life direction, Madonna, Sister Lyrics, gangster, smell, Song, love, | musicartikel.com
Anonymous

Browning- “300,000 jobs lost from 1994 to 1996 after Republicans took an axe to the budget.” Gee, professor, who was president then? Could it have been Clinton? And could he have vetoed the “axe to the budget” if he wanted to? Was there not a tax increase during those yeears, at least a luxury tax increase? Could that have had more to do with the jobs lost, as you say, than the budget cuts? Were they real budget cuts or Liberal budget cuts, which are just cuts in the amount of increase? Did you notice that the Clinton “balanced budget” seemed to have mysteriously happened after the Republicans pushed thru the capital gains tax cut in 1997?
Pingback: Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND | NewsReal Blog
Pingback: Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND | Blog on Fitness-Jewelry
Pingback: The Con: | News Copy, New York
Pingback: Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND
Pingback: Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND | News Patriot
http://twitter.com/fergiedurgish NOT LISTED

The real problem is that the government is not taxing the RICH, Obama is going to tax the well-to-do, the upper middle class, the guy who owns the hardware store and has three or four employees, not counting his family who work for free.

People need to realize that those making over $250,000, that’s not net or profit, that’s the gross wages or earnings per year. Obama has led people to believe something that is totally bogus and he needs to be called on it!
http://twitter.com/fergiedurgish NOT LISTED

The real problem is that the government is not taxing the RICH, Obama is going to tax the well-to-do, the upper middle class, the guy who owns the hardware store and has three or four employees, not counting his family who work for free.

People need to realize that those making over $250,000, that’s not net or profit, that’s the gross wages or earnings per year. Obama has led people to believe something that is totally bogus and he needs to be called on it!
Pingback: FinancialPlanningSite » Blog Archive » America’s Financial Crisis Is Now
Pingback: Google
Pingback: Five, Count ‘Em Five American Economic Statistics that will Kick you in the Testicles and keep you Wincing in Pain for Years to Come « The Liberal Lie (In Color)
Pingback: 7 Examples Of Liberal Unfairness – John Hawkins – Townhall Conservative « Gds44's Blog
Pingback: America’s Financial Crisis Is Now « Politics & Prosperity
Pingback: 9 Art Smoke Sites :: Gaia Gallery

Gingrich: Defeating Obama ‘Most Dangerous President in US History’ a ‘Duty Of National Security’

Previous Features

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN