Biggest drop in income since 1959- Thanks Obama! (minimum wage, salary, Baby Boomers)
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.
American wages, ajusted for inflation, have not risen appreciably (if at all) over the past 30 years.
However, the management class continues to see exponential gains in income.
But yeah, it's "Obama" that's the problem.... him and every other "job creator" that doles out 1% or no raises per year while paying themselves and their friends multi-million dollar executive bonuses and working to destroy labor unions. They even sit on each other's boards so they can vote for high salaries and bonuses for each other, for all the great profits their making for themselves and shareholders!
Job creators will pay the bare minimum they can get away with. There is no longer a sense of duty to one's employees, who are expendable cogs.
That's the reality. Democrat, Republican, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Bush... ROMNEY (King of slash and burn).... you've got your head in the sand if you think otherwise!
Yep, the sheep here always attack who they are told. First Obama, now all those worthless federal employees. As the fat cats fleece them, screw them, and say "hey look! over there!"
Perfect example of someone who is uninformed about the economy or has been brainwashed by yhe lame stream media.
Right away you mention the Clinton surplus which shows that you are a headline reader at best. If you have taken the time to look at the real numbers, you would realize that there was NO surplus, it was creative accounting and smoke & mirrors.
Then you mention safe drinking water. Ironically, I have been alive for 47 years and the drinking water I have had has always been safe. Not sure why these new regulations were put in place but maybe they are promoting some new form of Obama Kool-Aid that seems to be ingested by so many fools.
It is well known that the Obama administration was held in Contempt of Court after being order to allow more deep-water drilling and if in fact he has opened more oil fields it is simply because he shut them down. BTW, those regulations about deep water drilling were the reason why it took so long for BP to fix the problem during their oil spill.
The Bush Tax cuts caused the deficit? Wait, we all know and it has been widely shown that government revenues went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts. What happened at the same time was that spending went up. You want to just blame it on the war? Wait, federal spending on education alone was approx 750 billion since 2000 and test scores remained basically the same. Sounds like a good investment? Ummmm, NO!! But if you wanted to cut that spending, you would be demonized.
And why didn't you address entitlement spending? It accounts for 62% of the federal budget.
How many of these problesm has Obama tried to fix? None. Green energy is a failure, business is more regulated than ever, real unemployment is around 15%. We have a false investment of money supply via QE measures. Long term, we have a recipe for disaster.
So instead of being misinformed and just throwing out some drive-by media talking points, do some research and educate yourself so that you don't look to be the brainwashed liberal fool.
You said "I've been brainwashed by yhe lame stream media."
That's insane because you can't explain this democrat brainwashing.
But here's a (Australian) source with scientists classifying the US republican party as a "corporate propaganda group."
Your a member of a corporate propaganda group telling me I've been brainwashed.
Lie #2. You said "we all know and it has been widely shown that government revenues went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts."
The following source clearly states that all respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues." Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
(see paragraph 1 and 2)
The rest of what you said is a bunch of change the topic manipulations.
Fox news and Rush radio tells you 100's of lies.
Would you like me to list them ??
You said "I've been brainwashed by yhe lame stream media."
That's insane because you can't explain this democrat brainwashing.
Here's a Australian source with scientists classifying the US republican party as a "corporate propaganda group."
Your a member of a corporate propaganda group telling me I've been brainwashed.
Lie #2. You said "we all know and it has been widely shown that government revenues went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts."
The following source clearly states that all respected economists say "tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues." Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME
(see paragraph 1 and 2)
The rest of what you said is a bunch of change the topic manipulations.
Fox news and Rush radio tells you 100's of lies.
Would you like me to list them ??
Don't watch Fox and I don't listen to Rush. Thanks though.
So lets see, first read this about the Clinton surplus:
There was no surplus and this will show you why. But based on your grammatical mistakes and lack of proof and specifics regarding these topics, I feel it may be over your head.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
There was no surplus and this will show you why. But based on your grammatical mistakes and lack of proof and specifics regarding these topics, I feel it may be over your head.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
A surplus is having more money than your budgetted for.That has nothing to do with whether the national debt went up or down.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 13 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,532 posts, read 16,516,802 times
Reputation: 6004
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
What's good?
Tell us what trillions in deficit spending, and trillions more in quantative easing have given us that is so good.
Spending has gone down every year under Obama, but since you dont care about that, lets look at it another way then.
Remember when FOX news ripped Romney because his economic and budget plans all added more to the deficit than Obama's ?
yea, so you are complaining about the lesser of what some would consider " two evils",how ever i doubt you complain about Romney's 2014 budget of 1.6 trillion like you are complaining about Obama's 875 billion dollar 2014 budget.
There was no surplus and this will show you why. But based on your grammatical mistakes and lack of proof and specifics regarding these topics, I feel it may be over your head.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
Actually, the first Bush tax-cut occurred in 2001. Revenue fell immediately.
2001 2,215.3 <- Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA)
2002 2,028.6
2003 1,901.1 <- Bush Tax Cuts (JGTRRA)
2004 1,949.5
2005 2,153.6
There was no surplus and this will show you why. But based on your grammatical mistakes and lack of proof and specifics regarding these topics, I feel it may be over your head.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
Interesting that you stopped at 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts were still in place for 2008/2009.
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
Prove that the revenue increases from 2003 to 2007 were the result of the tax cuts. Prove that the declining revenues in 2008 and 2009 were not the result of the tax cuts.
You may dismiss economic theory if you want, but without it I guess I'm free to claim that tax cuts only work at increasing revenue for 4 years, at which point the tax revenue will begin to decline.
If you accept the Laffer curve then whether or not a tax cut will increase or decrease revenue depends on where you currently are on the Laffer curve. If you are on the right side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go down. If you are on the left side of the curve then cutting taxes will cause the revenue to go up.
Secondly, to dispell the general article that you quote but this is reality, not theory. Here are the ACTUAL tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Note that the first Bush tax cut occurred in 2003.
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
No spin or lies there. Would you care to take some time to review and perhaps change your opinion on tax revenues not increasing after tax cuts?
No spin .... are you kidding?
You act like there was no private sector debt bubble driving tax receipts. You act like credit outstanding didn't increase from $30 trillion to $50 trillion during this period.
And besides, if it was so friggin wonderful, how come by 2008 tax receipts started to fall? We didn't raise taxes...
And also explain how tax receipts increased during the Obama administration. I'm anxious to hear your explanation for that. (I know the answer, I want to hear yours)
Last edited by le roi; 03-01-2013 at 01:51 PM..
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.
