Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That wasn't President Obama that I quoted. It was RONALD REAGAN!
Add'l quote by Reagan:
For the record, the $160 billion figure is substantiated. It's described in many news sites for all those who know how to Google. AeroGuyDC chooses not to accept it, that doesn't make it unsubstantiated.
The point about the hissy fits is right on the mark.
I don't care if "news sites" are reporting it. I want to see the actual emperical data and subsequent study that actually came to that conclusion. Surely if it's such common knowledge, it would be easy for you to provide a link to the study, right?
This is really not hard to understand. You can post a link to 3 million news sites, it matters not to me. If those news sites don't cite the actual study from which those figures were derived, then you've not shown me anything.
The fact is you were busted (again) for falling for the claims of your puppet-masters. And then you posted it as fact without any actual factual backing. It doesn't get more ignorant than that.
That wasn't President Obama that I quoted. It was RONALD REAGAN!
“We want to see that everyone pays their fair share and no one gets a free ride,” Reagan said, and that “no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they’re rich and powerful.”
.
and the bottom 47% pay xero in fedral income taxes.......so where is the free ride
EVERYONE should pay the same RATE..we want EQUALITY
I don't care if "news sites" are reporting it. I want to see the actual emperical data and subsequent study that actually came to that conclusion. Surely if it's such common knowledge, it would be easy for you to provide a link to the study, right?
This is really not hard to understand. You can post a link to 3 million news sites, it matters not to me. If those news sites don't cite the actual study from which those figures were derived, then you've not shown me anything.
The fact is you were busted (again) for falling for the claims of your puppet-masters. And then you posted it as fact without any actual factual backing. It doesn't get more ignorant than that.
That's right, any news source that disagrees with your set beliefs must be wrong, so here's a site you'll like, World Nut Daily http://www.wnd.com/
Facts you won't like from the liberal rag Bloomberg:
Reagan, renowned by Republicans as a tax-cutter, also increased revenue about a dozen times when confronted with surging deficits. The Treasury Department has estimated those measures would be the equivalent of $300 billion annually today -- more than what many Democrats are now seeking as part of a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.
Quote:
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, then criticized as the largest tax increase in history, scaled back corporate tax breaks, increased unemployment-insurance levies, and raised excise taxes on cigarettes, among other changes.
Quote:
“The goal is simple and just: to see to it that everyone pays his fair share,” Reagan said in August 1982. He predicted the tax increase would help the economy because it would reduce the deficit, which he said would lead to lower interest rates.
and the bottom 47% pay xero in fedral income taxes.......so where is the free ride
EVERYONE should pay the same RATE..we want EQUALITY
Our income tax is based on earnings not social equality. The more one earns, the more he pays, until GWB ended that and the economy went down the tubes.
Intellectuals of all political stripes know by now that the Buffet Tax, if passed, would only bring in $31B over 11 years. That's not quite $3 billion dollars annually, and it will be spent by the US Government in less than 24 hours.
It boils down to this:
Barack Obama and Democrats believe that their consitutiency are mere pawns. They know that the Buffet Tax will be struck down in Congress. As a result, they believe that it will serve as some sort of political victory by painting the GOP as in bed with the rich. Who would view it as a victory? Liberal Pawns. And that's the plan.
The Buffet Tax is not good policy. The Buffet Tax is merely a vehicle to drag liberals out of their slumber and to put them in the Class Warfare Mode.
The real truth is that Barack Obama and Democrats think you're stupid. More importantly, they don't think you'll do the math. They don't think that you're smart enough to say:
"Hey...wait a minute! A tax on millionaires will only net $3 billion dollars annually?!? We spend that in less than 24 hours! What in the hell can we actually accomplish with $3 billion dollars??"
The answer is NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING but flitter it away in less than a day.
When will Liberals and Democrats hold Barack Obama and Democrats accountable for their worthless class warfare and class envy ideologies?
Think of the Dave Ramsey concept as applied to tax policy. You take the baby steps first.
I like the idea of all income being taxed at the same rate. I have absolutely no problem with it. However, I wouldn't mind it if my tax rate on income earned from my labor was reduced to match the rate on my income that my money earns for me.
Our income tax is based on earnings not social equality. The more one earns, the more he pays, until GWB ended that and the economy went down the tubes.
wtf???
1. yes the tax should be based on earnibgs and the more you earn the more you pay...AT ONE FLAT EQUAL RATE for ALL......ie 1% of 10,000 is 100....1% of 1,000,000 is 10,000
as far as bush, his tax cuts/credits were for the poor and middleclass...the economy went down hill when the democrats took over the congress
Think of the Dave Ramsey concept as applied to tax policy. You take the baby steps first.
I like the idea of all income being taxed at the same rate. I have absolutely no problem with it. However, I wouldn't mind it if my tax rate on income earned from my labor was reduced to match the rate on my income that my money earns for me.
I agree NO TAX should be more than 15%
if the government cant run on 10-15% of all income...then the government has a problem
the total of all ""reported"" income is over 18 trillion.. estimates of ""unreported""(off the books) income is between 17% and 55% (or 2 trillion to 9 trillion) on top of the reported incomes
15% of 18 trillion is 2.7 trillion....more than the ENTIRE current revenue (to include payroll, corporate, exsise, and estate taxes COMBINED)
1. yes the tax should be based on earnibgs and the more you earn the more you pay...AT ONE FLAT EQUAL RATE for ALL......ie 1% of 10,000 is 100....1% of 1,000,000 is 10,000
as far as bush, his tax cuts/credits were for the poor and middleclass...the economy went down hill when the democrats took over the congress
You don't remember GWB bailing out the banks? GWB almost bankrupted the whole world economy and it still could happen. The Democrats came in office after the damage was done and tried to turn it around but didn't do enough.
Obama made it look like he increased debt because he took GWB's debt that was off the books and hidden, and put it on the books. Bush hid the cost of two wars and kept the debt off the books. Obama added the debt to the budget increasing his debt by almost 2 trillion from his first day in office. Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com
On 9/20/2010, the NBER announced that “the U.S. economy reached a trough in June 2009, making the 18-month recession that began in December 2007 the longest in the post-war period.”
Quote:
July 1990 (after 92 months of expansion) and the contraction lasted for 8 months;
March 2001 (after 120 months of expansion) and it too lasted for 8 months;
December 2007 (after 73 months of expansion). At this writing, we don’t know how long it will last.
What do these three recessions have in common? They all occurred under a Bush, the first under George H.W. and the second and third under George W.
The committee identified December 2007 as the peak month, after determining that the subsequent decline in economic activity was large enough to qualify as a recession.
Payroll employment, the number of filled jobs in the economy based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' large survey of employers, reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined in every month since then. An alternative measure of employment, measured by the BLS's household survey, reached a peak in November 2007, declined early in 2008, expanded temporarily in April to a level below its November 2007 peak, and has declined in every month since April 2008. For a discussion of the difference between payroll and household survey employment measures, see Mary Bowler and Teresa L. Morisi, "Understanding the Employment Measures from the CPS and CES Surveys," Monthly Labor Review, February 2006, pp. 23-38.
Intellectuals of all political stripes know by now that the Buffet Tax, if passed, would only bring in $31B over 11 years. That's not quite $3 billion dollars annually, and it will be spent by the US Government in less than 24 hours.
It boils down to this:
Barack Obama and Democrats believe that their consitutiency are mere pawns. They know that the Buffet Tax will be struck down in Congress. As a result, they believe that it will serve as some sort of political victory by painting the GOP as in bed with the rich. Who would view it as a victory? Liberal Pawns. And that's the plan.
The Buffet Tax is not good policy. The Buffet Tax is merely a vehicle to drag liberals out of their slumber and to put them in the Class Warfare Mode.
The real truth is that Barack Obama and Democrats think you're stupid. More importantly, they don't think you'll do the math. They don't think that you're smart enough to say:
"Hey...wait a minute! A tax on millionaires will only net $3 billion dollars annually?!? We spend that in less than 24 hours! What in the hell can we actually accomplish with $3 billion dollars??"
The answer is NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING but flitter it away in less than a day.
When will Liberals and Democrats hold Barack Obama and Democrats accountable for their worthless class warfare and class envy ideologies?
You don't remember GWB bailing out the banks? GWB almost bankrupted the whole world economy and it still could happen. The Democrats came in office after the damage was done and tried to turn it around but didn't do enough.
Obama made it look like he increased debt because he took GWB's debt that was off the books and hidden, and put it on the books. Bush hid the cost of two wars and kept the debt off the books. Obama added the debt to the budget increasing his debt by almost 2 trillion from his first day in office. Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com
Isn't it obama who keeps saying that he "saved us from the brink"?
Don't let facts get in the way!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
