The information is there, all you have to do is read it but those who don't really want to know how we got where we are won't.

Same thing with health care. Kaiser and Nixon made a deal to adopt a Kaiser HMO model instead of universal health care that Nixon was leaning towards.

Nixon of all people...

Actually there is a tape of Nixon discussing that very matter. In it he speaks about Kaiser and HMOs.

Very interesting article. It all makes sense now

Jude Wanniski. Now I can put a name to the madness...

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Ergo--the stimulus package will fail.

America wins when liberalism fails.

The spending is the problem and the gov't cannot spend it's way out of this recession.

Just more deficits--but when Obama does it --you folks cheer.

Hypocrite liberals.

#5 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-01-28 09:23 PM

You're pathetic.

After reading the article linked on this thread this blurb at MSNBC about today's unanimous vote against the stimulus bill rings and the rhetoric accompianing it ring true to form - right out of Jude Wassinki's playbook:

"Republicans said the bill was short on tax cuts and contained too much spending, much of it wasteful and unlikely to help laid-off Americans."

"Just more deficits--but when Obama does it --you folks cheer."

Please link to one time you booed as Bush racked up the five largest deficits known to man.

"Just more deficits--but when Obama does it --you folks cheer."

An while you folks whine for more tax cuts which have been now proven not to stimulate the economy.

An while you folks whine for more tax cuts which have been now proven not to stimulate the economy.
posted by Danni

An while you folks whine for more tax cuts which have been now proven not to stimulate the economy.

#9 | Posted by danni

According to a graphic from a major investment services firm on MSNBC last night, the return on investment from various avenues looks like this...

For every $1 invested in the food stamp program, $1.73 will enter the economy.

For every $1 spend on infrastructure, $1.59 will enter the economy.

For tax cuts in general, for every $1 in cuts $1.03 will enter the economy.

And for corporate tax cuts specifically, for every $1 in cuts, $.30 will enter the economy.

I hate to sound like BL2, but I didn't get the name of the source.

I didn't get the name of the source.

Moody's.

Fucking commie, that Moody.

Thanks Danforth!

Thanks for putting it up there, SanAn...I have to admit I was surprised by the vast disparity of the numbers.

If there's anything to those statistics....

If there's anything to those statistics....

#16 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

As far as I can tell, Moody's is not about politics, they're about MONEY. So I don't think they have a dog in the fight, other than what makes good economic sense.

I'm just saying I'm this close to tasting blood the next time somebody starts talking about the benefits of reducing corporate taxes.

"Who knew?"

I did, back when Unca Ronnie was being sweared at...oops...in, that is.

"We're gonna make a bigger pie!"

(But, meanwhile, unseen by the public, Unca Ronnie cooks a deal with the Japanese makers of electronics, allowing them to bombard the nation with cheap stuff, all this in exchange for using Japan for bases to monitor USSR. This process does not yet have a name, but, later, will be called "the giant sucking sound"...)

Some pie, eh?

"Bush racked up the five largest deficits known to man."

Your man Obamee is well on his way to break that record... you might be eating crow on that one.

Two things wrong with this article.

1. It is a very biased view. (IE truth bent)

2. The Democratic party is not the same party they where 30 years ago.

I see Smurphy and Snotlocker are here whinin'about Libruulz again....

The democrats aren't liberal.

There are no liberals in power or media.

Not one.

It was a good read.

I lament, though, that a politician doesn't have a chance without being a "Santa Clause." Why can't we just have some stodgy old accountant type making sure the budget balances, we have only the programs we need, and that tax rates are sufficient enough only to cover what we're spending, not more or less?

People knew. White folks just wanted to be racist.

THIS IS REALLY WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE!!!

And to show you how studpid they really are. Half of white folks make less than me!!!

Hold on to your racist beliefs.

I make triple what most make.

Fuck you too!!!!

Hagbard, page 3 table - pdf file.

It is time for those who benefited from Bush's tax cuts to spend and spend big. Show us that Trickle Down Economics works. If you can't improve the economy then why to you deserve all those tax breaks?

Reichwing piss down theory = fascism covered with dreams of a white Christmas.

Keep in mind all of you nay sayers of the stimulus plan, there is NOTHING in our history to commpare to what we are in right now. There is no magic solution and like everything else, no matter what people may think will work, it still remains speculative at best. No magic formula = No right to have patisan squabbles. What didn't help is Bush/Paulson sounding the alarm to infuse money and here we all sit with absolutely no answer as to where it went. In the same breath, Karl Rove is still be instructed by Bush to not honor his subpoena and Bush's lawyer telling Rove not to talk. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is the only system that is immune to an audit. hmmmmm.

I don't think the rich should have to pay taxes. How many agree with me?

#32

I think everyone should have to pay taxes, say 12%. No deductions, no credits, no BS. Make it as simple as a sales tax.

HALO YAY!!!!!!!

GOATMAN

Nobody should pay taxes. Think about it. We are taxed on our everyday goods, services, homes, businesses, and even our deaths. We are taxed by our states and our cities and overall by the (never a part of the Untied States) the IRS. What part of this helps anyone? Who benefits? Then if that is not bad enough our everyday life is then bid on by wall street. Who benefits? None of the everyday folk. Nobody.

Nobody should pay taxes.

Then how do we build the roads, pay the soldiers, get the trash to the landfills, assist the needy, etc.?

Simply by paying a yearly fee. Once you set up taxes, much like toll roads, any government body has the ability to hike the rates as "wanted" not ever as "needed". In the 1970's the toll booths went up across the land with a divine promise that they are temporary. We now are at the point where we have the ambiguous $ sign without an amount. Where is that divine promise today? We have ten times the amount of toll booths and compounding infrastructure and road problems. What gives? One fee and that is to be paid to all of the trash, army, etc. We have had enough money in this country to cover 100 years worth of all of these things, but in the hands of greedy individuals, it gets out of hand. Think about the billions that have gone up in smoke in Iraq when our soldiers were not even equipped with the proper headgear. Cher of all people had to round up donations to get a $60 piece for their helmets. Those soldiers deserved more money than just what they received. Our veterans rot while we piss away their earnings. We don't need to have taxes. We need to have a country free of anything that can be taken for a ride. We need to have a choke chain for anyone or any governing body to do this to us. One amount for one year from everyone would be ample enough and then some left over to cover anything and everything we could possibly ever need. Billions of initial Bush/Paulson bailout divided by population equals plenty of money to go around.

GOATMAN

BTW, I did read the NIST report. I regrettably have to say that there is a mix of truth, non truth and no links to follow up a lot of info on there. Although, you and I may not agree on this point, I just wanted you to know that I gave it plenty of attention.

Nema -- I understand what you are saying, but what's the difference between a fee and a tax?

If you mean on an "as used" basis such as roads and parks, I do understand how that fee would work. But how do you pay for defense, the elderly, etc. Cher won't be around forever to pass the hat, and the needy and elderly would have to pass their own.

re WTC 7 report:

I knew you would, Nema. You strike me as a level headed person who keeps her (his?) word. Even though you found what you thought were errors, did you find it interesting as a nerd like I did? I revel in that stuff.

Thanks for the link to that, one more piece of info under my belt.
I revel in sorting through what is fact and what is not. I am ok with not having to look at more blue prints at the end of my day, but it's all good. I am a big nerd about digging for truth.

Goatman, in regards to the needy, the elderly, etc., you are talking to a person who is a huge flag waver for these type of people. I can't stand that the elderly, our vets, our handicapped/abandoned children, environment are left to rot. Its killing me and even talking about it makes me furious. The difference between a fee and a %tax is the regulation. The "tax" as we know it is being collected and distributed by a governing body. It is the very thing we started fighting about in this country long ago in our inception as a country. Screw that! I just want the bill direct. Let me decipher if it is on the up and up.
I don't want anyone anymore taking our money and doling it out as they sit fit. Clearly as we are human, nobody has proven responsible enough to have that job.
Quick example. Back in 2004, there was a shortage here in the United States of concrete. We were paying through the nose for it. If we could even get any at times. The prices for it were out of this world. Reason being that it was all going to China to build some massive dam. Our hands were tied with something manufactured here in the US. I will not pay for anything without detailed account as to what the high price is for. If it is justified, no problem. When the suppliers tell me I am paying high prices because the US manufacturer is shipping it out to another country....thats were I draw the line. Same with any money, taxes or anything else I dole out to private institutions that ESPECIALLY are exempt from audits. They our without bounds and much like everything else all of it is bloviated costs, I want no part of that ANYMORE! My last Emergency Room visit cost me plenty for just a broken limb. What killed me was paying $15.00 for a fucking small box of kleenex that wasn't even Puffs!!!

As usual goatman didn't read the article.

The main just of the article is tax the rich and tax corporation to spend on the lower and middle class and the economy will boom.

Not rocket science, I have been saying this for about 5 years now.

As usual goatman didn't read the article.

???

Yes I did. Someone asked a question in post 32. I answered it.

Do you ever think about what you type before you do? Do you ever read the posts? You ought to. You wouldn't make idiotic statements like you just did.

BTW, I was in two jets today. I saw all kinds of gound workers much closer than 50 feet from an airtake in a running jet engine. None were knocked off their feet. In fact, coinicidentally, I saw a little diagram on the engine of the engine with a fan shaped area in read in front of the intake and the words "13 ft".

Where do you come up with your crap?

And what kind of plane was it dork?

Tell me when you ride a whale, nothing but a fabricating story teller.

I don't think the rich should have to pay taxes. How many agree with me?

#32 | Posted by halo3 at 2009-01-29 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:
#32

I think everyone should have to pay taxes, say 12%. No deductions, no credits, no BS. Make it as simple as a sales tax.

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2009-01-29 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag

So this is reading the article, yep, sure did.

Tell me when you ride a whale!

nothing but a fabricating story teller.

Says the guy who claims the intake of a jet engine will knock a man 50 feet away down and that jet fuel is water soluable.

Pardon me, but people who say crazy things asthese are not very believable. LOL

So this is reading the article, yep, sure did.

Fuck you are dense. No, that was not reading the article. That does not mean I didn't. The two actions are not mutually exclusive, idiot.

Fuck. I hate having to explain the simplist concepts to people. Grow a brain and use it, runnysore.

It is possible to read the article AND respond to an unrelated question. Get it?

MONEYWAR

Goatman and I read the article, we just went off on another tangent....some of it left overs from a week or so ago on another story.

Says the guy who claims the intake of a jet engine will knock a man 50 feet away down and that jet fuel is water soluable.

Pardon me, but people who say crazy things asthese are not very believable. LOL

Posted by goatman at 2009-01-29 11:59 PM | Reply

As far as taxation, I like Forbes' idea, 17% after the first $13000. Maybe as far as 17% after the first $10000. Of course I'd still like to see certain programs and government departments eliminated as completely useless, but that's just me.

/didn't have time to read the article, only just say the thread, and it's time to go to work

"The main just of the article is tax the rich and tax corporation to spend on the lower and middle class and the economy will boom."

Yeah, what a crazy idea, we only built the richest, most powerful country in the world with the largest middle class in the world that way.
Hey America, let's reinvent the wheel.

The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.

Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don't control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It's true that presidents don't control the economy, but they do influence it as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.

The second argument doesn't hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That's a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich the top 1% and the top .1% the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor.

India has the largest middle class in the world as far as I know

"India has the largest middle class in the world as far as I know"

That's possible, I didn't consider India but I do wonder what constitutes a "middle class" there as opposed to here. I don't see too many Americans emigrating to India but I do see quite a few Indians eager to come here.

"Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor."

But the Republicans were smart enough to go after social conservatives, who happily vote against their own economic interests if the politician will pretend to be 1. Christian, 2. against abortion, 3. anti-gay, a little subtle racism helps too.

"Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor."

But the Republicans were smart enough to go after social conservatives, who happily vote against their own economic interests if the politician will pretend to be 1. Christian, 2. against abortion, 3. anti-gay, a little subtle racism helps too.

--------------------

Born poor.

Live poor.

Die poor.

JESUS LOVES YOU!!!

AND FUCK THE FAGOTS!!!

Anyone that quotes Michael Weiner (aka "Savage") has a mental disorder.

lol, did someone mention a flat tax?

I bet you have a cork on the end of your fork.

....and I thought Bush 41 was being festive with "Voodoo Economics".

at least the money funds aren't all breaking the buck... yet....

who's buying your bank today?

When the suppliers tell me I am paying high prices because the US manufacturer is shipping it out to another country....thats were I draw the line. Same with any money, taxes or anything else I dole out to private institutions that ESPECIALLY are exempt from audits. They our without bounds and much like everything else all of it is bloviated costs, I want no part of that ANYMORE! My last Emergency Room visit cost me plenty for just a broken limb. What killed me was paying $15.00 for a fucking small box of kleenex that wasn't even Puffs!!!

#41 | POSTED BY NEMA AT 2009-01-29 11:37 PM

You just took three unrelated things to complain about why you don't like taxes. The first (price of concrete) is related to market conditions: as demand goes up and supply is constant, the price will go up as well. What does that have to do with taxes?

The second I can't understand other than you are just ranting and trying to get across a general feeling of "I'm getting ripped off here!" by way of complaining that you don't understand how your money (in either private or public use) is being used. Again, what does this have to do with taxation any why it is either good or bad?

The last part is a complaint on costs for medical services which again is market driven. Unless the hospital you went to was government owned and operated, you can't really complain too much about costs: that's a transaction between you and the hospital and really doesn't involved this discussion about taxes.

Now, if you want to complain that your hospital visit was so expensive because you are helping to subsidize those who can't pay but still must be treated, then you are really on the same side of the issue of healthcare as those interested in something a bit more socialized. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to have access to a better diet, better preventive medicine and are, as a result, less likely to need to go to the hospital in the first place which means that you are spending less money there and so the less affluent (like you and I) will be stuck with a bigger share of the burden to not only pay for ourselves but those who can't pay at all.

Kind of like tax cuts for the wealthy.

See, that wasn't so hard.

here is yet another history lesson for leftists who want to keep changing it

gnp announced at being down 3.8%

obama called it worse in 30 years...bulllshit

cnn "EXPERT" ali called it worse EVER>..worse bullshit

gnp report from 1982 was down 6.8%
now if even I can see thats TWICE as bad then well

and what did RONALDO MAXIMUS DO...

TAX CUTS.....

you know JUST LIKE JFK DID!!!!!

but again...lets say that it isnt..

then leftisist wont be SCARED to try rush's idea..

540 billion to dems with thier welfare package and 460 billion to republicans for tax cuts.

and then see which one gets economy back going.

(figures are from percentage of votes in last election)

ASSHOLE Formerly blah blah blah,

Still a full time Flushbot, I see.

What exactly in the President's plan is 'welfare'.

And tell us again how giving Soros' buddies a big tax break will stimulate the economy.

Now, if you want to complain that your hospital visit was so expensive because you are helping to subsidize those who can't pay but still must be treated, then you are really on the same side of the issue of healthcare as those interested in something a bit more socialized.

From Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "otherwise you wouldn't have come here."

crazy reasoning is crazy reasoning..

What exactly in the President's plan is 'welfare'.

And tell us again how giving Soros' buddies a big tax break will stimulate the economy.

#63 | Posted by axe at 2009

well I dont think soros would get a tax break since he made his fortune off of short selling in the stock market if I understand that correctly.

and what is welfare

how about tax breaks FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT PAY TAXES for one

and the money to acorn
and illegals
and any number of other things in the bill
which even dems have said like the little mole named KRUGMAN who said just the other day that fdr's mistake was that he didnt SPEND ENOUGH Money..

well how much is enough????

and how much DEFICIT is too much.
I seem to remember the left screaming about that to high heaven when it was republicans giving us TOO MUCH...

"tax breaks FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT PAY TAXES"

That bull has been debunked so often it's ridiculous.

Ever heard of payroll taxes, or gasoline taxes, or property taxes, or utility taxes, or excise taxes, or sales taxes?

but again..thats not where they are talking about giving cuts now is it?

a caller into a radion program this week suggested that instead of this massice welfare bill that everyone get a period of time that they dont pay those payroll taxes for instance....

what about that?

A RADON PROGRAM???

THAT Sounds bad

RADIO.....

QUIDAMBRUJAH

With all due respect, I think you had too much of the analysis pill this morning. First, I was talking to someone else who I had many discussions with over the past few weeks. Yes, I was combining a lot of things but this person knows where I was going.
Secondly, I do understand the tax cuts for the wealthy, so I did not need any explanation, but thanks anyway. You put so much unnecessary work into it.
Lastly, please, don't talk down to people if you don't know where they are coming from in a conversation. I have had a business for years and I understand supply and demand. That does not mean that I accept it.
In conclusion, ask questions before you comment because speculation and assumptions are pretty much what got all of us in this mess at this point in history.
Peace

"If you can't improve the economy then why to you deserve all those tax breaks?"

This is the fundamental difference between those on the left and those on the right. Those on the left think that your tax dollars are the governments to "let" you keep". Hence the above statement, "why do you deserve" to keep your own money? Because I f'ing earned it, that's why.

Why do you feel like your entitled to my money?

"Why do you feel like your entitled to my money?"

There have been taxes for thousands of years. The argument about whether or not government has the right to tax you was concluded back when they first invented taxation. Are you now seriously going to try to make the argument that government does not have the right to tax you? If not, then the only real argument is how and how much.

Danni- Do you realize that Tax Freedom day was April 23rd in 2008? So the first 113 days of 2008 we all worked to only pay our tax bill. I know those on the left love fairness....does that seem "fair" to you?

DANFORTH: Ever heard of payroll taxes, or gasoline taxes, or property taxes, or utility taxes, or excise taxes, or sales taxes?"

Your statement applies if the subject is about all taxes bring paid. If the subject is Federal Income Tax, the statement just becomes a 'red herring'.

Danni- Do you realize that Tax Freedom day was April 23rd in 2008? So the first 113 days of 2008 we all worked to only pay our tax bill. I know those on the left love fairness....does that seem "fair" to you?

#73 | Posted by homerj at 2009-01-30 05:55 PM

No it's not fair. Those who enabled the right to plunder our economy should pay a higher percentage in taxes.

"Your statement applies if the subject is about all taxes bring paid. If the subject is Federal Income Tax, the statement just becomes a 'red herring'."

Bullshit. Read Afkabibble2's statement. He doesn't differentiate; he merely barfs up the Rushpoint.

Add that to the fact that when ALL taxes are considered, all five quintiles pay about 17%-21% of their income in taxes.

You are right, he did not differentiate, your point is valid and your numbers appear to be in the ballpark.

Giving money everyone but the rich is what makes sense as far as most of the $$ entering the economy. They have a larger marginal propensity to consume. How many poor people do you think will throw money in the bank? No, they have bills to pay, have the urge to buy things, and whatnot. Sure they will save some, but as far as proportions go the wealthy are more likely to put it back. With that being said, putting back money is needed too (otherwise there wouldn't be money for loans from banks, which greases the economy), but if they're wanting short-term growth then that makes perfect sense.

A little bit of trivia, did you all know banks actually make money? They take your money aside from the required reserve ratio and loan it out to people and businesses. For example, you deposit 1000 dollars and let's say the required reserve ratio is 15%. The bank is able to loan out 850 dollars to earn interest, keeping 150 to meet their required reserve ratio (to make sure they have sufficient cash on hand.) The total amount of money now is $1850. Of course only 150 of your deposit is still there, but for all normal purposes your 1000 dollars has been turned into 1850. So when people jerk their money out of the banks they're essentially reducing the money out there by not just the amount they put in their mattress, but also the possible loans.

#61 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-01-30 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Excuse me, the Sterno's talking

So here we go. "Confessions of a "Republican."

I am a Republican ashamed of my party. I am tired of the party making an issue of idiotic causes like "gays in the military" and same sex marriage, or stem cell research.

How does fighting that benefit anyone?

They are fluff issues and time wasters. I don't care about those issues. Two men being married has about as much bearing on my life as a butterfly flapping its wings in the woods of China. Which is to say, NOTHING.

Stop wasting time and pay attention to the real issues. Like States Rights and smaller federal government.

I believe the federal government should be providing only those things that benefit the country as a whole: The military, National Policing (FBI, DEA and etc...) interstate transportation and infrastructure, and a concerted plan on how to interact with the other countries of the world.

It should not be funding drug rehab, or projects that only and wholly exist inside a state and benefiting only those states citizens.

Each state should be collecting taxes and establishing projects to help the underprivileged as they see fit.

I remember fondly when the old adage of "vote with your feet" meant something and made the country healthier.

I and other Americans should keep more of what they earn. Charity begins at home, so let Americans (including business) keep their money and decide what needy organization deserves that money.

America has gotten away from fairness. EVERYONE should pay their fair share of taxes. People that make more money should pay more, but why should they pay a greater percentage of their income? it is insane! Many would consider me and my wife rich since together we earn enough to qualify for President Obama's tax increases. But no one ever takes into account that we live in the third most expensive city in America and we had to accumulate over six figures of student loan debt and hundreds of late nights going to school and working full time to put ourselves in this position. Why should we be punished for suffering the times when we earned together 50,000 a year combined while working full time but retained a long term focus. Why punish us for industriousness. We are no different than most in this regard.

Why should crazy pork like this bill is be allowed to pass. Give this money back to those that earned it and let them decide.

The problem is, how do we unscrew this system that allows such pork laden craziness to get passed? I am a HUGE fan of requiring Congress to vote separately on every individual spending proposal. It will force Congressman to treat Congress as an actual full time job as it should be and not only work 4-6 months out of the year, and it will make their spending records crystal clear.

I am ashamed of my party for catering to the religious right, and masquerading as small government while spending my money like water.

Stick to your promises and actually fight for me to keep my hard earned dollars.

My point is OORAH, that if the Democrats want to spend their time fighting those battles, let them go.

Allow gays to marry.

Don't waste time fighting that issue. Fight for what is important. And what is important is me being able to provide for my family, invest in my kids college education, my retirement plan, and being able to have a bit of fun once in a while.

#82 Fight for what is important. And what is important is me being able to provide for my family, invest in my kids college education, my retirement plan, and being able to have a bit of fun once in a while.

*DING DING DING*

We have a winner!

Goatman I just wish the government would stop thieving from my pocket and let me keep my money so I CAN do those things.

This insanity of a pork laden bundle of uselessness won't help.

I place complete blame for our current economic fiasco on the GOPhers. GWB and company inherited a thriving economy. After giving tax breaks to the rich, starting an unneccesary elective war and exporting millions of jobs overseas, all of a sudden the GOP wants pretend it somehow is sticking up for fiscal austerity. Their cynicism as to the stupidity of the typical American is unbelievable.

I place complete blame for our current economic fiasco on the GOPhers

Of course you do. That's because you have a one dimensional brain that cannot wrap itself around a complex situation and digest the dozens of causes and complex situations involved. So you have to pick a single person or entity and lay the blame at their feet.

You are not alone, though. There are many others like you. Why don't you run along and play with them?

"EVERYONE should pay their fair share of taxes. People that make more money should pay more, but why should they pay a greater percentage of their income?"

No one wants to force them to pay such high taxes. Invest the money in a job producing enterprise and we would be happy to give them a tax deduction for it so they will not owe tax on that portion of their income. The right never likes todiscuss that side of the tax equation because it eliminates their favorite whine....fairness for rich people.
This nation is not over taxed, other successful nations are taxed more heavily than Americans. It costs a great deal to operate the infrastructure of a modern nation, we have military reponsibilities around the globe. It is too late to return to 1800 America. We need to reverse the tax cuts of Ronnie RAygun and Dubya, invest that revenue in the things which will build a strong economy and also let investors take tax deductions to invest in enterprise. With low tax rates like we have now we have effectively encouraged people to invest in the stock market instead of a business. We need to raise capital gains to the same level as labor and we need to beat unmercifully anyone who ever tries to lower them again.

Think about this little tid bit. The market has lost what, 50% of its value in the past 18 months???
If those investments had not been into stock they could have been into actual factories which could now begin to produce the goods America needs with American labor. As it is, all we have to show for all that money is a memory. The stock market is a casino, we should never forget that again.

come on Danni. You can't be that ignorant of the tax code. The Tax code places strict limits on how much you can invest every year in your own future, and your childrens future.

That limit is not very much.

Let's take for example the tax deduction for daycare expenses. Daycare costs me $314 a WEEK. I am only allowed to claim a $5,000.00 deduction for the YEAR. Do the math Danni. It ain't good.

I am not self employed and I earn in excess of 6 figures and my wife who is also not self employed makes right about the same. But to do that we had to endure well over 6 figures in college tuition debt. Which DID generate jobs for teachers, janitors, lunch ladies, and a slew of others. Yet, the amount of interest I can deduct has a minimal impact on my tax eduction.

So basically the fact that I made good decisions with a long term focus and stuck through 50-60 hour work weeks breaking my back at menial labor and an additional 20-25 hours a week in school/studying for 6 years to get my degree at night and my wife did the same, the income we know make becuase of that good planning puts me into the highest tax bracket.

Please explain why I deserve to be punished to lose nearly double the percentage of my income as when I was earning less. It is insane.

And to say that the economic problems were caused by a lack of investment in business is really seeing the trees instead of the forest.

Unions in this country with their insane demands have poisened the environment for decades. Their is little incentive for an american manufacturing company to remain in America when Unions demand %600 more in wages and benefits than they have to pay in thrid world countries.

I understand supply and demand. That does not mean that I accept it.

#69 | Posted by nema

Just because you don't accept it makes no difference because it is still there.

I once knew of someone who didn't accept gravity. That didn't work out too well for him.

when Unions demand %600 more in wages and benefits than they have to pay in thrid world countries.

#88 | Posted by TGNH

Last time I checked, no Union contract was ever unilaterally imposed on management.

Let's take for example the tax deduction for daycare expenses. Daycare costs me $314 a WEEK. I am only allowed to claim a $5,000.00 deduction for the YEAR. Do the math Danni. It ain't good.

#88 | Posted by TGNH

I think you are confusing flex benefit spending accounts with an actual tax deduction.

There is no tax deduction for child care payments.

There is a credit.

Of course if you don't want to pay for child care.... don't have children.

Everything in the world is not tax deductible. Guess what, I get a $0 tax deduction for my heat and electricity. So in comparison your $5,000 to FSA deduction to supervise your rug rats is quite generous.