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.
Cool story bro, what happened in the summer of 2008 when the stock market raised there was a housing bubble based on bad debt that destroyed several lenders and devastated many others causing a credit crunch. We lost around the same amount of jobs created in aout half s year.
A bubble is just that. It could have burst under Clinton. Or even under Obama. But, it didn't. It burst under Bush.
Bush DID send 17, I believe, letters to Congress to try to get them to address the mortgage problem.
We have videos of barney frank (D) saying IN Congress, that "we have no problem".
We have cris dodd (D) in the Senate ALSO denying any problems.
Just as I expected, no substance in the OP. Because someone said. Gonna go after him because he lowered the taxes on those greedy corporations?
Read on.
Dayton said the proposed drop in the state sales tax rate to 5.5 percent would move Minnesota from 7th highest sales tax to 27th
Dayton said the new sales taxes and rate would generate $2 billion in tax revenue.
Dayton's budget imposes a new income tax tier for the state's richest 2 percent.
Dayton's proposal carries out what's been a signature goal of his governorship. He would create a new, fourth-tier income tax bracket of 9.85%, which would apply to taxable income over $250,000 for married joint filers and single filers who earn above $150,000.
Dayton stressed the new rate would apply to only to small portion of Minnesota's taxpayers.
Dayton also called for a 14 percent cut in Minnesota's corporate business tax rate – the largest cut in state history. The governor proposed lowering the corporate income tax rate from 9.8 percent to 8.4 percent – a cut that would move Minnesota from the 4th highest rate to 12th.
Dayton proposed a $500 property tax rebate for all Minnesotans, calling it a tax cut for middle-income families.
Dayton proposed increasing cigarette and tobacco taxes to bring in an additional $370 million in revenue.
Politicians are whores. They sell themselves to the highest bidder. Because of the campaign laws that the idiot public supports, we allow the oligarchs to buy the politicians and to be their masters.
This is in direct contrast to what is good for both the country and the people, but the people are too stupid and lazy to take a stand, so things will continue to get worse until technology will make it impossible for the people to do anything about it.
Welcome to the new system of serfdom. We have come full circle.
Robert Reich has made this point numerous times. Despite the fact that the U.S. economy has picked up, average Americans aren't seeing it in their paychecks. According to Reich, there are two reasons for that.
First, American corporations exert a disproportionate amount of influence on the U.S. government, and the average American has pretty much zero influence by comparison. Thus, Americans are virtually powerless and voiceless when it comes to their impact on public economic policy. All the power is in the hands of big corporations.
And secondly, most big American corporations have zero allegiance to America. They don't care about American workers, their only allegiance is to their shareholders, and providing them with increased profits quarter after quarter. If those profits come at the expense or to the detriment of their workers, it's of little consequence to them.
By contrast, the European economy is in worse shape than the U.S., but their workers are faring better. He attributes this to the fact that labor unions are stronger there, foreign corporations share more of the earnings with their workers, and their executives typically make less than their U.S. counterparts.
European laws make it more difficult for large corporations to buy and own their governments. By contrast, we have Citizens United, that pretty much guarantees it.
What's the answer to this problem? Reich concludes:
Quote:
Either we lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American politics. Or we increase their allegiance and responsibility to America. It has to be one or the other. Americans can’t thrive within a political system run largely by big American corporations — organized to boost their share prices but not boost America.
Way to defend the 1%. Party first, right? Just kidding. Of course there's no advantage to moving those billions out of state to South Dakota, it's all just a big coincidence.
- In the past four years, the amount of money administered by South Dakota trust companies like these has tripled to $121 billion, almost all of it from out of state. The families needn’t actually move to South Dakota, or deposit their money at a local bank, or even touch down in the private jet. Little more than renting an address in Sioux Falls is required to take advantage of South Dakota’s tax-friendly trust laws.
- States like South Dakota are “creating laws that are conducive to a massive exploitation of a federal tax loophole,” said Edward McCaffery, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law. “We have a tax haven in our midst.”
- While the super-rich use various tools to escape the levy - - some have exotic names like the “Jackie O” trust and the “Walton GRAT” -- the advantage of dynasty trusts is that they shield a family’s wealth forever. That defies the spirit of the estate tax, enacted almost 100 years ago to discourage the perpetuation of dynastic wealth.
- Still others are drawn to South Dakota’s iron-clad secrecy, and protections of trust assets from creditors and ex-wives. Many of these features emulate those available in Bermuda and other island havens. Some wealthy families are also attracted by South Dakota rules that enhance their control over investment decisions and make it easier for them to set up their own trust companies rather than rely on a bank trustee.
- South Dakota repealed that rule in 1983, and unlike Idaho and Wisconsin -- the other two states without the provision -- it had no income tax. So, McDowell wrote, a trust set up here could shield a big fortune from taxes for centuries, escaping tax bills as it hands out cash to great-great-great-grandchildren and beyond.
Since Governor Dayton pays MN income tax on anything he withdraws from this trust, your post is a moot point to this discussion. The discussion is how well MN is doing after finally having the 1% start paying their fair share instead of expecting the working class to do the heavy lifting.
That's actually what I said. The trusts can have billions, but since he "only" collects $166k a year from it in Minnesota, he only pays Minnesota taxes on the $166k, while the billions parked in South Dakota go untouched by the IRS and the state of South Dakota.
As you've figured out by now, there is also normally an estate tax when a wealthy person dies of 40%. If the wealth lasts generations as with the Dayton's, they'd pay 40% per generation. This law was enacted to help redistribute the excess of wealth amassed by the 1%. By moving all their money out of Minnesota, the Dayton's avoid paying the 40% every time one of the Dayton's dies and passes their fortunes to their heirs.
Governor Silver Spoon, funneling his money out of state to avoid taxes while he calls on others to pay more. This is the Democratic Party.
Who is the governor of South Dakota who is in on this scheme?
The point of my post was to show that the Bush years weren't all that great like you do wearing your rose-colored glasses. The same jobs created under him were effectively lost by the time he left office. In a way you could say a zero-sum for Bush years jobs. And for much of Obama's job gains for the first four/five years, most were (mostly) just part-time jobs at a lower payrate than those lost (again part of that is because larger firms monetarily closed while retail, fast food and jobs given to temp agencies, interns who may or may not have been paid, or independent contractors boomed.)
As for your post, Bush may have sent letters but sending letters isn't enough. There are ALWAYS those in congress that disagree with the president whether it is because they truly don't believe the issue exists or they just hate the president's party. Why didn't he use the bully pulpit to actually get some sort of reform or assistance like he did starting a war in Iraq? (One we should have never ended in 1991 as Saddam was already a war criminal then.) This is what I don't get. Sure Bush sent letters but when it wasn't heard, he cowered in his treehouse Family Guy portrayed him to have with Katrina.
The point of this is that Bush kept his head in the sand after his re-election. He may of sent letters but he did it from that treehouse and that's all.
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.
