Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Unemployment is still over 8 percent. Businesses aren’t hiring. The Democratic Senate has not presented a budget in almost three years. The president presented a budget that was voted down 414-0. We now have gotten word that the monthly deficit for March of 2012 was a shade under $200 billion. Entitlements are careening toward insolvency. Medicare “as we know it” will explode within 10 years if nothing is done now to fix the problem. Considering all of these massive issues, who could ever imagine that the president would spend almost all his time touting the “Buffett rule”? This insignificant issue, ...
Good letter. I would add the following in complete agreement.The president exclaims that there is excessive income inequality in America . As a result, the president seeks to increase income taxes on everyone making over one million dollars a year, his " Buffett Rule". After all, Warren Buffett, the celebrated billionaire, and Rule's namesake, announced his own willingness to pay more in income taxes so that his tax rate would not be less than his secretary's.
So what's the reason these "rich Americans" and potential new income tax victims are still paying capital gains/dividend tax rates of only 15%. The thinking behind this is to create an incentive so that businesses will be able to raise more money to stimulate capital investment and also to reduce the burden of double taxation.Once on earnings at the corporate level, and again at the personal level on receipt of capital gains/ dividends payments. The "Buffett Rule" is yet another example where Obama's ideology trumps the best interests of America, and undermines our economy.
Obama's "Buffett Rule" is actually intended as a diversion from the major headaches and problems plaguing real Americans everyday as the result of Obama's deadbeat policies. It will do nothing to effect recovery of the housing market. Nothing to stimulate the job market. To the contrary, it likely will hurt the job market. Nothing to reduce gasoline prices. Nothing to cut through the mass of red tape in federal regulations that is holding back businesses from moving forward with growth plans . Nothing to reduce the 50% of wage earners paying no income taxes. Almost nothing to reduce the size of the enormous national debt. Nothing to relieve corporations from paying the highest income tax rates on the face of the earth.
So when the entire effect of the "Buffett Rule" is honestly examined , it is nothing more than one more dead end ideologue waste of time for Americans.
The Buffet rule will Not generate jobs - it will kill jobs
The buffet rule will not grow the economy - it will stifle capital formation for small business.
------------)
Here are the New taxes that Obama already has going into place 1/1/2013
- lowest income tax rate jumps from 10% to 15%
- highest income tax rate jumps from 35% to 39.6%
- capital investment gains go from 15% to 20%
- the child tax credit is being reduced
- 15% dividends tax changed to be regular income up to 39.6%
- pay roll taxes up 2.9%
- new 3.8 % investment surtax including on real estate
- inheritance taxes exemption is reduced from $5 million to $1 million.
--------)
American's want tax reform and Obama is refusing
The Government is spending more every year on GSA travel then the Buffet rule will bring in
Liberal's "1%" leader Obama who is in the 35% tax rate bracket is only paying an effective tax rate of 20%.
Why? Because of all of those tax avoidance breaks that Obama refuses to get rid of.
Obama has a free house, free food, free airplane, free gas for his limo, free healthcare, and yet he scoured the 72,000 page tax rules and regulations to lower his taxes.
Letter writer synopsizes the current President and his Admin perfectly.
Yet, the notion of taxing the rich more is resonating among Americans for Dems as a political ploy. Romney and GOP will have to address it. Romney, now that he is clearly the GOP pick, MUST and will. Part of this issue is the President beating up on Romney over his lack of disclosing his tax returns. Mitt's father set the precedent, not Obama. Mitt said he didn't always agree with his father, but on this issue, like it or not, he has no choice.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Defined as Gimmick: a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.
Gimmicks are fakes and this one does nothing to address the spending problem of the Federal govt.
So, what's the theme here? If it won't completely solve the deficit problem, it shouldn't be done?
Following that tortured reasoning, I suppose reducing discretionary government spending here and there should not be done because it doesn't completely solve the deficit problem either.
Advocates for millionaires and oil companies are fond of distracting us by pointing to other problems as long as they're not required to participate in the solution.
"So, what's the theme here? "
Well, Mr. Weber if Obama is to be believed, it's fairness. And he makes a good case. Although using Buffett as the banner waver is disingenous. The theme really is "All the Above" to quote another Obama euphemism.
Good letter. Bravo.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." - Theodore Roosevelt
Whatever you do with tax 'rates, if the income tax code isn't re-written, it will continue to be used to reduce the amount people and businesses actually pay. So the Buffet Rules 30 % rate will turn out to be much less because the income tax code will be used to reduce what those people pay.
The President talks about 'fairness' but if we really want 'fairness and increased tax revenue', we need to have Congress rewite the income tax code so their are only 3 rates, and most of the deductions and writeoffs are removed or greatly reduced... for all Americans and businesses.
If we did that, all Americans with an income of any kind would pay income taxes on a progressive scale, so everyone would care about their tax rate, and the wealthy and businesses could no longer greatly reduce their tax rate (ie Romney at 22 % and Obama at 20 %).
These commom sense proposals are lost in the fog of the fight over inconsequential proposals like the Buffet Rule.
I'll say it one more time. If we raise tax rates but leave the income tax code as it is, I 'guarantee' you that the wealthy 'will not' end up paying the stated rate!
Michael
Your clue that the Buffett Rule was a political gimmick is the fact that Simpson-Bowles plan, Obama's own debt commission, and the Ryan plan proposed **lowering** the tax rates, not raising rates. The Simpson-Bowles plan replaces the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with the lower rates of 9, 15, and 24 percent. Ryan's budget reforms the individual income tax code eliminating loopholes and reducing taxes into two simple brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent.
The goal should be to grow our economy. Grow the economic pie, get those 12 to 14 million unemployed Americans working again. Grow the economic pie, don't divide it via a class warfare tax plan like Obama's.
BTW, the Buffett Rule which got an up and down vote in the Senate yesterday, thanks to Reid, failed.
Also, unlike the House which passed a 2012 Budget Resolution on time, as required by law, the Senate under the ignominious leadership of Senator Reid did not. And not just this year alone with no annual budget resolution but for the past 3 years that Reid has been the majority leader. No annual Senate Budget Resolution as required by law. Shame on Senator Reid. Shame on the US Senate. Shame on President Obama.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Let me ask an intelligent question.
Would you rather give money to the government or invest in your business?
Please give me an honest answer and I will follow up with another intelligent question.
Thanks
brtaylor
Amazing how the Republicons have nothing,...have no ideas on how to repair the economic mess THEY made over the last 30 years. Its always the black guys fault. No, no its not. Republicons have nothing for anybody, not even their own supporters beyond more tax cuts for the wealthy while crashing the economy for everyone else. Truly American.
"Would you rather give money to the government or invest in your business?"
Interesting question and posed to Warren Buffett when he first made his case for the rich paying more. He was told to sit down and write a check to Uncle Sam for the dificiency in his taxes paid. He passed saying he has more confidence in himself and his charities of choice making better use of his money than IRS.
Buffett is no man's fool. Look at the scandals in GSA and SS, two of the Fed's top tier agencies. If you can't trust them with taxpayers' money, then who?
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Amazing how the Republicons have nothing,...have no ideas on how to repair the economic mess THEY made over the last 30 years."
Amazing how liberals spend-spend-spend and blame anybody and everybody but themselves. Bob Beckel, a former democratic operative, tried to blame Hannity last night for his cussing on air using the F word.
So much like democrats. Cause something then blame everyone else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bob-beckel-sc...
I say, let's celebrate that the rich are rich, and that you can also be rich. This is America where smart hard work can pay off. What a great place to live. The harder one is willing to work the more money they can make. As it is, the top income earners pay most of the income taxes right now. Liberals can be a negative bunch who look down on successful people who have money. Get a life guys.
The "Buffett Rule" has again brought out of the dark cave the liberal, rich person haters.Most income taxes are paid by the wealthiest individuals now. Let's leave them with the lion's share of their wealth just to prove the point that this is a nation of opportunity. A nation where you are able to keep the fruits of your labor. Let's celebrate the wealthy and the successful. They fashion an incentive and hope for the rest of us that we too have opportunity in this exceptional nation where there can be hope and optimism for a better life.
"AwolBush The Head War Criminal Himself"
What, no criminal blabber for Obama killing Americans with drones Frank?
A little liberal politicking today I see. Distracting perhaps?
Thank you Dennis Williams and Kevin Boyer for your responses.
As promised here is my next question (after a comment).
Investing in your business means you spend money on capital, resources, labor or a combination of all three. These expenditures are written off against your businesses revenue, which lowers the taxable income subject to income taxes. The lower the taxable income, the lower the taxes.
What is the guarantee that management will grow the business by investing in capital, resources and labor?
Please respond. I am going somewhere with this questioning.
Thanks
brtaylor
My hope and dreams:
1) Dems and Obama harp on the Buffet rule from now until election day
2) Dems and Obama harp on the "War on Women" from now until election day
3) Dems continue their class warfare, gender warfare and secular war on religiion and race warfare from now until election day
4) Obama runs on his economic record from now until election day
5) Obama runs on ObamaCrap
Please God make it happen.
Sincerely A member of the Republican Party
The Bush trickledown tax cuts that created no jobs has crippled the federal budget. Add to that Bush's Plan B prescription drug boondoggle and a couple of "off budget," (free wars are fun wars!) mismanaged trillion dollars wars and, guess what? We end up with someone like Mitt Romney paying a 13.9% tax rate on his $21.7M country club, no-work-required income.
But the GOP is an unintelligent bunch with no capacity to learn from its past mistakes so they want to CONTINUE the idiotic tax policies that got us into this deep ditch.
Thankfully, President Obama has stopped the insanity. He saved the vital US auto industry when the GOP wanted to watch it die. He passed the Affordable Care Act and now young men and women between the age of 21 - 26 years can be covered under their parents insurance plans. He has led us wisely during the worst downturn since the Great Depression.
But the myopic GOP keep trying to turn us into an English-speaking Somalia. Every man and woman for themselves, armed and desperate while the super-rich pay for private militias to protect their luxurious compounds.
That's the bleak republican vision that will mean the end of our great nation as it has always existed.
This is what brtaylor posted a few days ago:
-Debt is not a problem in this country.
-The problem is wealth distribution.
-Taxes on income over $3 million should be raised to 90%. Thus putting a ceiling on income.
-The minimum wage should be raised to $20/hour with -14% going to social security and 6% going to medicare.
-Lower the retirement age to 55 with a guaranteed income of at least $3,000/month per retiree.
-Lower the work week to 30 hours, which would -increase the number of jobs by 33%.
-Taxes on corporations should be 45% of net income. No loopholes.
Needless to say, there are no plans either by democrats or republicans that includes this wish list. This plan is left of left.
Ah, yes, dipstick, he who resides in Crook County, IL, calls for us to sacrifice while he crows about saving 100 bucks a month because of Obamacare. How typical of a Dumbocrat! They pat you on the back while stealing your wallet. Let's put the USA back on the path of self-reliance, self-esteem and self-respect come November. Vote Mitt!
LastThroes,
Let me help you out since you don't understand. From 2002 to 2008, we were at or near full employment. See the data below which represents the Employment-Population Ratio in January from 2002 to 2012. Notice the drop in the ratio from 2002 to 2008....it was none. Notice the drop in the ratio from 2009 to 2012, from 60.6% in 2009 to 58.5% in 2012. These trends prove that Bush maintained a higher level of employment than Obama, who has lost jobs overall. 12 to 14 million people are out of work LastThroes. We have 17% fewer tax filers than before the recession. LastThroes, you may think everything is okay with jobs, the economy and debt & deficit spending however, Americans, poll after poll, think otherwise.
Employment-Population Ratio
2002 = 62.7%
2003 = 62.5%
2004 = 62.3%
2005 = 62.4%
2006 = 62.9%
2007 = 63.3%
2008 = 62.9%
2009 = 60.6%
2010 = 58.5%
2011 = 58.4%
2012 = 58.5%
Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive and well, no thanks to the Party of No.
After ten years of having it their way republicans can offer no proof that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs as promised because such proof does not exist.
However, the tax cuts did do the same thing that an iceberg did to the Titanic -- blast a hole in the federal budget, nearly sinking the economy and landing us in the ditch of another Great Depression, as republicans monetary policies did in the 1920s.
Incredibly, GOP lawmakers are unable or refuse to see the disastrous results of their flawed agenda.
:::::
Ola - Why in the world should these rich sit back and pay 13% to 15% when all the rest of us pay double that?
:::::
Now Frank is claiming as part of the 1% that he pays 30% of his income to Obama.
Frank start at page one of the 72,000 page tax avoidance code and do as Obama did and get your effective tax rate down - stop being a fool. Hire a tax lawyer. Use schedule A &B. Start a business. Give to charity.
Or you can campaign to eliminate the tax breaks as republicans want and lower the rates
"General Motors is alive and well"
--------
GM stockholders and Bondholders lost over a $100 billion wiping out many retirees
GM still owes Taxpapers &50 billion
GM made $8 billion last year but paid no taxes
gM is losing money in Europe and American are paying for it
GM is moving jobs to China
The Volt is on fire!!!!
Why no challenge from any of the teabagger posters to this claim?:
"After ten years of having it their way republicans can offer no proof that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs as promised because such proof does not exist."
Thanks RefNV
That leads into the main point that I am trying to make.
There is no guarantees that management will invest profits in the businesses they run to grow them. They can simply take the profits and pay themselves huge salaries.
Since personal income taxes are low, they can overpay themselves and write off their pay as operating expenses.
By keeping corporate taxes low, they accumulate profits and drive up the price of the stock. They can pay themselves in stock and sell off the stock and pay a 15% tax rate on the realized profits. They also don't pay the %15.3 in payroll taxes that we all must pay on income under $108,600.
A 40% corporate tax rate would force corporations to invest the money instead of sitting on it.
A 50% personal income tax rate or higher on income over $1 million dollars would discourage the raiding of a companies income by the top executives.
This would guarantee that management would have to invest in the company, thus creating jobs and distributing more wealth to the workers.
Over the past century, it has been proven that high tax rates on the wealthy lead to an expanding and more prosperous middle and lower class.
When the tax rates are low, we suffer economic bubbles and a higher frequency of recessions. Most damaging of all, an unfair distribution of wealth that leads to high income inequality.
I hopes this put to rest, "You can't tax the the job creators bull crap."
This was nothing but a ploy to fool people into believing that high income earners were deserving of the large pay they were extracting out of the economy.
Thanks
brtaylor
With such complexity in the tax code and the persistent unwillingness or inability to scrap it and start over, how's about eliminating a few exemptions and deductions across the board--so as not to further complicate the code AND increase tax revenue some? Let's not phase out something 'cause that just adds complexity. ELIMINATE specific code sections. And I agree with many of you that we must phase out UN-entitlements such as welfare and Medicaid. UC is OK 'cause it's earned by employees but we might put a needs test on it and/or reduce the payment amounts. Back when, Clinton and company passed a 2 year limit and 5 year limit on welfare but it seems that's just to TANF. They still give away everything else forever and ever--food stamps, Medicaid, Child Care, LIHEA and such. In order to phase this out of the federal system and let those States that choose to pick up where needed, let's put time limits on everything else, retroactive, and start eliminating eligibility for people who have been collecting and collecting. The only exception would be permanently disabled individuals and that would NOT be for all the benies--just the disability coverage.
Tax the oil companies! Tax the defense contractors! Tax the Bankers ! Tax the rich doctors and drug companies ! After 30 years of trickle down the jobs ain't comming.The beast the washed up movie star was starving is us.
"Tax the oil companies! Tax the defense contractors! Tax the Bankers ! Tax the rich doctors and drug companies ! After 30 years of trickle down the jobs ain't comming.The beast the washed up movie star was starving is us."
The liberals are desperate! Give me your money America! Tax the 50% who pay all federal income taxes more! We liberals want more of your money!
frank, don't you think Obama voting against the Iraqi war makes him look like a coward?
And you really pay 30% income tax rate????
Really?????
Obama does not even pay that, he is around 20% and paid less than HIS secartary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/pol...
Thank you for paying 30%, it helps the country and all those poor people !
I don't use the immoral drug companies twisted products !
Joe even though your a Repubican and all- I kind of missed you have you been sick or something ? I hope you didn't have to face that cluster american medical ediface.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/emps...
Business aren't hiring???? Nearly half of the workers fired during the down turn have been hired back...about 4 million. In addition there are currently over 3 million want adds for workers. Finding educated qualified workers is a bigger problem.
Brother Ref and I discussed his labor participation rates yesterday. It has changed very little since 1950.
brtaylor - "Would you rather give money to the government or invest in your business? Please give me an honest answer and I will follow up with another intelligent question."
Would you rather give money to people who collapsed the economy at no risk to themselves? Not only that, made the shrinking middle class and low income wage earners pay for their greed?
Although the Buffet Rule barely puts a dent in our debt, at least some common folk will feel that someone is trying to create a sense of fairness.
Since the slow destruction of unions and wages frozen or scaled down working people don't consume as much. Pull out safety mechanisms as the Glass Steagall Act, add the "American Dream" about owning a home through predatory lending and huge firms bundling deals sold off as junk to other banks and what do you get?
A side note:
Rasmussen polling is known to be right wing biased. Don't bet the farm count on their numbers.
"Brother Ref and I discussed his labor participation rates yesterday. It has changed very little since 1950."
Yes we did. Gerry stated age & retirements accounted for the difference in the drop in the employment-population ratio while I claimed it was caused by the recession. You be the judge. Below represents the Employment-Population Ratio in January from 2002 to 2012.The trend line isn't following Gerry's explanation that aging & retirements accounted for the 2009-10 drop in the employment to population ratio. In the data, notice the drop in the ratio from 2009 to 2010. Now look at the rate prior and after 2009. Virtually no change. These trends do not support Gerry's theory that age is the reason why a drop in the Employment-Population Ratio occurs. If it were age & retirements then the drop would be a consistent decrease year-over-year.
Employment-Population Ratio
2002 = 62.7%
2003 = 62.5%
2004 = 62.3%
2005 = 62.4%
2006 = 62.9%
2007 = 63.3%
2008 = 62.9%
2009 = 60.6%
2010 = 58.5%
2011 = 58.4%
2012 = 58.5%
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS123000...
"Carmine ... apparently the relentless lying of Mexico Mandate Mitt is perfectly fine with you"
If lying disqualified candidates from holding political office there would be no one running....ever. get real.
In politics, it's the degree of... not the commission of lies that Americans hold their leaders accountable. Even you by now should know that and if you didn't consider yourself informed now.
Carmine A. DiFazio
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-5...
Labor participation has dropped 2 points since 2007 and has been between 60% and 65% for the past 60 plus years. It moves very little and few even follow it. After the election you won't hear about it until the next election.
The construction industry is one of our biggest employers with 7 million participants. This is a MAJOR problem area. The entire industry has gone kaboom.
Vegas has lost between 70 and 90,000 construction jobs. This is more workers than are employed in the entire domestic oil and gas industry. You cant have normal rates of employment until this industry recovers. The industry has had about 14 months of job growth and is recovering but still deeply depressed.
Construction is the key to 6% unemployment.
A drop in the employment-population ratio from 63% to 58.5% equals approximately 12 to 14 million jobless Americans since 2008-09.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2...
The above represents a 100 year labor perspective. If anyone cares they can read it and come up with whatever conclusions they feel appropriate on the topic. Read it in bed. Works better than Lunesta for a good nights sleep.
In terms of taxation and deficits we are currently $53 trillion short of where we need to be to cover medicare, medicaid, and SS. The numbers signing up for the programs are at record levels rapidly approaching 100 million.
People love the programs but hate paying for them. The Buffet rule is kind of a joke. It probably wouldn't raise enough $$$$$ to cover those standing in line TODAY.
We are a mature economy with an aging population. Economic growth will be slower going forward because of this. No way to grow our way out of it.
We can either continue on the current path and default within 50 years. This is what Asia, Latin America and Russia have done.
Or we can reduce medical costs dramatically,(the bulk of all this is medical cost related) and institute a national sales to cover the remainder.
A 20% reduction in medical would save $10 trillion and a 8% national sales tax would pay for the rest.
Anyone who believes that people will accept massive cuts to the above programs to solve the deficit issue is living on Fantasy Island with Ricardo Mantalban.
SS, Medicare and Medicaid are here to stay. People have to decide whether to pay for the programs currently or put them on the credit card and write off the balance in a few decades.
VernosB
As you probably know by now, I was using a right wing talking point about spending to illustrate the insanity of the republican tax policies.
These tax policies did lead to the crash of the economy. Now these fools want to double down on this catastrophe.
I just wanted to show the readers of this opinion piece who occupy the conservative, supply side, and trickle down side, the error in their ways. Contrary to the lies that has been spread by the righties, the facts about the mess we are in should be too painful for them to dismiss.
The problem is that we have a President that they don't like. They will burn down and destroy the whole country just to be rid of him.
That is the shame I am trying to expose to the sane among us.
If the author of this article and the supporters are not millionaires, then this is just another classic act of stupidy in voting against your own interest. Get off of the partisan level for a moment and look at what just might be in your own best interest rather than spouting the party line. If all aspects of our Govenment had worked together instead of one side adopting a policy of VOTING "NO' EVEN ON PROJECTS THAT HAD ORIGINATED WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. IN ALL HONESTY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THIS CRISIS WOULD NOW BE HISTORY? I am not saying accept every thing offered by the President, but compromise and work for the good of the PEOPLE --we could have made much more progress then just with one part of our elected Govenment trying to do it alone.
Joe, the End of the World is not here ... yet. Nor is the U.S. weak and pitiful ... yet -- despite the best efforts of some.
Allow me to suggest that you are mistaken; that the "Buffett Rule" exposes a major split in the Nation; and that the refusal to discuss the issue of inequality is a mistake at least as great as the refusal 150 years ago to discuss the issue of slavery.
Governments exist either by consent or by force of arms. Some 237 years ago, a government which had governed by consent decided in its infinite wisdom to strike at a small minority of "terrorists" who afflicted them. That government acted in a lawful manner. The result of that lawful exercise of lawful power for a lawful end was a loss of consent. No amount of military power which could be brought to bear by that government, which was then the world's most powerful military power, could re-impose control.
The "terrorists" (for so that government considered them) eventually issued a "press release" which included the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
There is, Joe, a view that the government is destructive of those "unalienable Rights". It is currently a minority view, but the refusal of a Senate minority to allow discussion of the "Buffett Rule" in a public forum, may, by inciting public discussion, result in that view becoming the majority view. If the majority or even a significant minority come to be of the mind that if continued the current form of government would inevitably and inexorably reduce them to poverty and to permanent inferiority of treatment and opportunity, then it will lose consent, just that other government 237 years ago lost consent and could never get it back by any means.
237 years ago there was a minority view whose sparks were fanned into flame and then into a raging conflagration by self-assured insensitivity. 150 years ago there was a minority view whose sparks were fanned into flame and then into a raging conflagration by self-assured insensitivity. Do we really need to test our luck a third time? Or is a conservative approach more prudent?
Again. Why no challenge from any of the teabag posters to this claim?
"After ten years of having it their way republicans can offer no proof that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs as promised because such proof does not exist."
Nothing but crickets. The teabag silence is deafening.
The truth of the matter is most rich people got rich by cheating the government. JB morgan sold bad rifles to the Union Army and old Cheney got things deal to him from Haliburton. Should I be jealous of you thieves ?
-- CNN/ORC poll: Most Americans Say Tax System Favors Wealthy --
"In the CNN/ORC survey, 68% of respondents said the current tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers, compared with 29% who disagreed with that view."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...
"The truth of the matter is most rich people got rich by cheating the government."
The truth is entitlement and government pension costs at the state/local level are bankrupting our country and causing our economy to flatline. $16 trillion national debt and $4trillion in state debt is all you need to know. Liberals are just upset that we can't pay for their liberal programs because there's not enough rich people to tax and cover these costs. Those liberal programs will and has started costing us jobs and a cut in our government services at the state/local level. Liberals lost independents and moderates and that adds to their upset feeling. They rolled out the Occupiers 7 months ago and that fissiled out. From 1947 to 1972, total government (federal, state, and local) spending averaged 26.7% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. In 2011, it has hit nearly 41%. Considering the present course of the GDP and with programs such as ObamaCare, spending will exceed 46% of GDP by 2016. For comparison, some nations recently in the news: Greece is at 51% of its GDP, Spain 49%, Italy 51%, and Portugal 50.2%.
Our high tax, low business investment and high unemployment is our current existence. Is it Greece? No, it's Obamaville.
29% agree with Bush's trickledown tax cuts.
68% disagree with Bush's trickledown tax cuts.
Looks like the right-wing loons who post here are in the minority and out of touch with mainstream America.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201......
LastThroes,
A Pollingreport.com poll shows 93% of Americans feel taxes are either too high or just right.Only 3% feel taxes are too low. It's amazing how opinions change when it comes to your own view of your own tax rate and taxes. Increase taxes on someone else? Sure, go ahead. Me? No way.
@hookershaky: JP Morgan was a banker in New York during the Civil War, his father had been a banker and left him $10 Million ... so where does this selling "bad rifles" come from??? As to Cheney. He was a politician before becoming CEO of Halliburton, so how did he cheat the government?
Leric, don't all politicians by definition cheat the government? They certainly cheat the voters. :)
Joking aside, whether or not people like Joe's politics, he is correct in saying that the most important task for the President is to work on lowering unemployment. It is also the most important task for Congress, as well.
The only way we are going to truly heal our economy is to bring back manufacturing jobs that have been moved offshore. This will not be easy and will take dedicated effort to restructuring our tax code and trade treaties.
The simple fact of the matter is that jobs in the service industries can not replace jobs in manufacturing in either quantity or quality of pay.
"Again. Why no challenge from any of the teabag posters to this claim?
"After ten years of having it their way republicans can offer no proof that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs as promised because such proof does not exist."
--------------)
Just the facts
When Bush took office during the Clinton recession, employment was 137,778,000.
In 2007 employment averaged 146,273,000. An increase under Bush of 8.5 million jobs.
Then Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.
Today, after 3 years under Obama, employment is just 141,412,000. So Obama still needs to make up 5 million job to get back to the peak Bush year.
Lack of job growth and loss of tax revenue from 5 million not working Is the primary reason the our deficit is out of control. Not the tax rates which have not changed for12 years.
@RefNV: Yes, the debt problem at the state and local government level is dangerous -- and, as it turns out, that is where the "Conservative" (please note the quotation marks and the capitalization of the C) impact has been greatest at limiting state and local revenues and thus reducing the capacity of those governments to handle their existing debt. California, is a prime example of this. To frame this as a "liberal" creation is to avoid the very real role of "Conservatives" in both expanding benefits and restricting the ability to pay for them.
@boftx: Oh the irony of such a position from Joe, who never saw an expenditure he liked if it was advanced by a D. We could have come roaring out of the Great Recession had we actually spent money on necessary public works. But we had a cautious, moderate President more like Herbert Hoover than Franklin D. Roosevelt. And, when that President has advanced a pro-manufacturing policy, Joe pooh-poohed that as improper governmental action which is unworkable because it involves government having an pro-industrial policy.
We need to rise above partisanship, but we will descend further into stupidity as Silly Season runs its' course.
Party of No idiots hoped to sit back in their recliners and watch General Motors and Chrysler die a slow painful death, and with them the hundreds of suppliers and dealerships that make up the US auto industry. Ford executives have stated publicly that the loss of their US competitors would have been a death sentence for their company as well since all three depend on the same suppliers for many parts.
This is a perfect example of GOP "leadership" -- which is anything but leadership. Thank goodness our Democratic president had the basic common sense to stop the loss of such an important American industry and its many thousands of jobs.
LastThroes seems to forget that President Bush gave GM and Chrysler a $13.4 billion bailout in December 2008 prior to Obama's.
Saul Alinsky is smiling from his grave at you useful idiots...
"LastThroes seems to forget that President Bush gave GM and Chrysler a $13.4 billion bailout in December 2008 prior to Obama's."
I haven't forgotten. Bush understood the importance of the US auto industry and did the right thing there. Unsurprisingly, he was opposed by most conservatives, especially the far-right tea party loons.
"As it turns out, that is where the "Conservative" (please note the quotation marks and the capitalization of the C) impact has been greatest at limiting state and local revenues and thus reducing the capacity of those governments to handle their existing debt. California, is a prime example of this."
Local governments cannot afford the pensions Leric. Stockton, CA was one example with many more to come. It has $760 million in city debt and unfunded liabilities. Stockton City Manager Bob Deis pointed to a health-care plan that pays the entire cost of care for every city employee and spouse for life, after only one month on the job. "In my 32 years of managing finances for various local governments, I have never heard of a situation like this'.
WOW.....one month on the job and the government pays 100% for every city employee and their spouse. Sweet deal. As Bloomberg News reported, the city "granted employees some of the state's most generous benefits, and now has 94 retirees with pensions of at least $100,000 a year -- more than twice as many as some comparably sized California cities." Writing in the Bee this week, Stanford professor Joe Nation, a former Democratic assemblyman, argued that "from Stockton to San Diego, government pension costs are crushing local governments." The article explained: "Based on economic and finance standards used everywhere except in the public pension world, the top 24 independent pension systems are collectively $136 billion in debt and have only 54 cents for every dollar they owe. In nearly every municipality, employee pensions are being prioritized over libraries, parks, street maintenance, health care and public safety."
I could go on...people can view the link below, pensionTsunami.com for more on California's pension funding issues. Democrats have been in control of that state for a longtime.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02...
http://www.pensiontsunami.com/
There is a difference between capital gain taxes and income taxes.
After paying your income taxes on money that you have earned you risk that money by investing it and if your risk pays off you pay taxes on that profit (Capital gains). Capital gains SHOULD be lower because you are taking a risk. If people didn't take risks investing their hard earned money our country would be in shambles!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxKlAwRzM...
I always thought the Buffet rule was don't take more than you can eat!!!
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
Desperate to distract Bushy? LOL
Two words....Obama's Record.
Three biggest American concerns: Jobs, the economy, reducing debt & deficit.
Conclusion: Obama failed on all three fronts.
Nice try Bushy.
What war crime did Bush exactly commit (waiting for the crazies to answer)?
Yes, this evil democrats. Lets vote for the tea party then we can spend again hundreds of billions in far away country killing innocents and our own people. Yep, lets do that.
leric : your a manipulator just like the rest of us! look up "the hall carbine scandal".