U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2012, 01:39 PM
 
691 posts, read 662,398 times
Reputation: 285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Not so easily. The immediate near-term effect of cutting spending is to reduce GDP, and so if you reduce too much during a recession, you will likely prolong it. Now exponentially forecast growth out from that worsened circumstance, and you will find that you have significantly worsened your revenue. That's not surprising, because by far the biggest determinant of revenue to government (and everyone) is GDP growth.

That said, excessive spending also drags on GDP growth over the long term. The moral of the story is not that you shouldn't cut, but that you should be careful how much you cut and when you cut it. Depending on how you go about it, your "net" revenue could look really different.

The recession ended in 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2012, 01:39 PM
 
34,240 posts, read 41,245,337 times
Reputation: 29696
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelStraker View Post
Barack is a community organizer who's only qualification is shaking down "the man". He is doing what he does best which is pretending to be your a mesiah while feathering his own nest for when he leaves office in 2016. Barack makes Jessie Jackson look like an amatuer.
He certainly makes the Repubs and their Messiah Romney look like a bunch of sore losers..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 01:44 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,950 posts, read 10,151,701 times
Reputation: 5112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Dh and I will also be divorcing for tax purposes when he retires next year.
Can't wait to reread the sanctity of marriage posts offered by the conservative ilk on the gay marriage discussions....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 01:54 PM
 
691 posts, read 662,398 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
He certainly makes the Repubs and their Messiah Romney look like a bunch of sore losers..

Unless you are part of Barack's moocher class, it does not matter which party occupies the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,442 posts, read 5,790,348 times
Reputation: 7893
Quote:
Originally Posted by eRayP View Post
So tell me.. how is anyone earning $250K a millionaire and a billionaire?
If it suits their purposes they will redefine millionaire as anyone who has earned (gross) a million dollars over their entire lifetime. Worked 30 years at $16 / hour? You're a millionaire! Here's your tax increase. Anything to keep the smoke and mirrors going and foster the Us vs Them attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,612,128 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
If it suits their purposes they will redefine millionaire as anyone who has earned (gross) a million dollars over their entire lifetime. Worked 30 years at $16 / hour? You're a millionaire! Here's your tax increase. Anything to keep the smoke and mirrors going and foster the Us vs Them attitude.
Certainly you must understand how absolutely insane that makes you sound. Right?

But I guess if it helps you blow off steam....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 4,552,882 times
Reputation: 3046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
If it suits their purposes they will redefine millionaire as anyone who has earned (gross) a million dollars over their entire lifetime. Worked 30 years at $16 / hour? You're a millionaire! Here's your tax increase. Anything to keep the smoke and mirrors going and foster the Us vs Them attitude.
Don't forget the 'imputed' income proposal from the Clinton era. Glad that never went through and I hope to God o never hears about it..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
9,442 posts, read 5,790,348 times
Reputation: 7893
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Certainly you must understand how absolutely insane that makes you sound. Right?

But I guess if it helps you blow off steam....
You think the party who needs to have "is" defined for them won't stoop to word games with millionaire to get the tax increases they want pushed through, or are you so blinded by party loyalty you just swallow everything the democrats tell you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,612,128 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
You think the party who needs to have "is" defined for them won't stoop to word games with millionaire to get the tax increases they want pushed through, or are you so blinded by party loyalty you just swallow everything the democrats tell you?
I think that there is a line between assertions that are reasonable and assertions that are insane. And I think you have blown right through it here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:52 PM
 
3,576 posts, read 6,049,754 times
Reputation: 1432
All I know is once of the worst taxes that hits almost every Henry ($200-500k) especially those with kids in high income tax states like NJ, NY, Maryland etc is the AMT.

It's funny how in 2012 Obama and the Dems define "rich" as $200/250k as a starting point.

Remember the AMT in 1969? It was a tax on the "rich". Rich was defined as $200k in 1969. Adjusted for inflation the AMT should only hit people making around 1-1.3 million per year in 2012 dollars. Clearly it does not.

We all know Obama and the Dems realize they can't touch the truly affluent. There is a huge difference between $250k and someone making 1 million a year. $250k with 2-3 kids, college payments, car payments etc. It takes a while to become a "millionaire".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top