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.
Page after page... only because y'all, the "republicans", only want to say that we're worse off today but scream in pain when asked to compare where we were in 2008-2009 to today. Thank you for serving as a reminder why I would rather jump off a cliff than join your band wagon.
And just what bandwagon would that be?
Stop your games of talking around the point you are trying to make and just say what it is you are trying to say.
The only thing that is clear is ridiculous nature of your mentality, comprehension of the situation, implications and simply being in touch with the realities.
I'll believe the Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University before your biased opinion any day.
60% are taking more than they're contributing. That's NOT sustainable. Regardless of your ridiculous wishes otherwise.
Let's be honest for a minute. Even if all the Bush II tax cuts were relaxed, we would only be going back the the Clinton era tax levels. This was not the end of the world. I understand the logic of extending the cuts a bit because of the recession and constrained demand. But it is only a defibrillator treatment for the economy, not a sustainable tax policy.
The drive by the GOP to make all the tax cuts permanent, and to call any sensible expiration of these tax cuts to be a massive tax hike, is nothing less than an insurgent strategy straight from Grover Norquist. The only way to balance the budget at such low tax rates is to axe thousands of federal jobs and benefits for the poorest in society in these difficult times, permanently. Taking the axe to the government is a far right wet dream, but undermining basic services and destroying middle class jobs is not going to make our country stronger. It is an aggressive, almost fascist agenda, and considering the dire straights of the middle class, spectacularly foolish.
I know that I, and I suspect most of you, were doing better in the Clinton years. So returning to some fo those fiscal policies sounds much better than what we have now.
Some just can't grasp that if the gov't has $100 it will spend $110.
If it has a 1 million, it will spend 1.2 million.
If it has a billion it will spend 2 billion.
That is why we have a national debt of almost 16 TRILLION dollars.
The gov't takes in enough money. It needs to start CUTTING spending before it takes in anymore.
Throwing money at Wall Street, short term or not, IS a luxury to most Americans.
Well, that's Obama's baby.
Quote:
"What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside."
I disagree. These are taxes that predominantly effect rich or ultra-rich people. They're not going to send shockwaves through the economy. Obamacare is a tax penalty, which is different from a tax. It's only going to negatively effect a limited number of people.
In terms of capital gains, this is so false that it only effects the "ultra-rich" people. We'll have to pay capital gains taxes when we sell property. That property was purchased and fixed with A LOT of hard work. Our own blood/sweat/tears, and the government wants a nice chunk of that.....for what or why?
We are not ultra rich, just middle class. We got to where we are because of money management and being frugal instead of spending all the time on things with high depreciation. And we still live a tight lifestyle. Why punish people with capital gains.
I'll believe the Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University before your biased opinion any day.
60% are taking more than they're contributing. That's NOT sustainable. Regardless of your ridiculous wishes otherwise.
Of course, you need something to help you because you can't make your own points, arguments and present the analysis. You'd have something, if you could.
And, why do you think 60% taking more than they're contributing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Well, that's Obama's baby.
Deflections seem to be your refuge. But, I'm sure you firmly believe that an average American is no different when it comes to his/her ability to play in the Wall Street as the top wage earners and especially those who rely mostly on capital gains. Given your understanding of the realities, it wouldn't come to me as a surprise, at all!
We'll have to pay capital gains taxes when we sell property. That property was purchased and fixed with A LOT of hard work. Our own blood/sweat/tears, and the government wants a nice chunk of that.....for what or why?
Because clearly, you're rich. Only the rich pay capital gains tax, don't you know. (sarcasm, in case anyone missed it)
Of course, you need something to help you because you can't make your own points
I could, but then you and your ilk ask for proof. So I just cut to the chase and provided the proof. No need to argue opinions. Facts are facts.
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.