A jukebox that only plays one song
The deficit is high, the debt is growing, the war’s financial costs are exorbitant, and the nation is just coming to grips with the need for a sizable investment in the nation’s bridges and infrastructure.
Given this environment, the president has a plan: more tax cuts.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was “inclined” to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.
As Kevin Drum put it, "He really is like a windup doll, isn't he? No matter what's going on in the outside world, no matter what problems we're facing, no matter what the political situation is, you pull the cord and he says 'Tax cuts!' It's like he's the Manchurian President."
I do believe the man has a death wish, and he wants to take the rest of us with him.
To paraphrase FDR, 'We have nothing to fear but Bush himself'.
Wow the guy is just astounding. Every time I think he could not be more out of touch with reality he does or says something even nuttier. All of our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to get the bill for these assinine policies. Any takers on a bet that if he does submit a tax cut for corporations to Congress the Dems will roll over and pass it?
Now I know where I've seen Dumbya before: The "Chucky Movies!". He IS the demented, diabolical wind up doll who knows only one program - even at the expense of the people who pay his salary. Amazing how out of touch Bubble Boy really is.
What "battle"? Has this congress actually told the president no on any issue?
Congress would probably go for it because those big corps are also big campaign donors. Sadly, that counts with them. Please let me be wrong.
Lyme disease, which can affect the brain, has apparently had a much more severe effect on Bush than his handlers would have the American public believe. The man is truly incapable of any intelligent thought or understanding that he is driving this country into the ground in every way possible.
One wonders why Bush doesn't offer Iran a tax cut to stop their nuclear program...
I always hear that "European Corporations Pay Less Taxes" stuff--Fox Street Journal pushes it big time--but my first thought is: That doesn't factor in all the loopholes and deductions that American corporations get.
I hate when Repubs give only half the argument. They're pathological liars.
It has worked well. Bribing voters with their own great great grandchildren's future earnings.
Anais @ 7:
Actually, I think that's the years of untreated syphillis you're seeing there.
Do D's have the courage to say "this tax cut is nuts"?
steve davis @ 5:
And usually the crushing bore of a guest leaves at the end of the evening. The repetitiously scripted one reading the same thing over and over and over. This deadening feedloop where nothing escapes. bush congress senate bush congress senate bush congress senate.
Where is our well-aimed meteor crashing into the atmosphere? WE NEED ONE NOW! NOW!
NOW!
to all you creationist monkeys out there.........FU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And where are the Republicans who believe in fiscal responsibility? Where are the conservatives who realize that tax cuts when we have such a huge deficit is an absolutely insane equation?
I thought so. The GOP should be banished from political office for a generation until they find their souls again. OK, they'll never change but I'd settle for them hiding under a rock for awhile.
And then there's the Dems... come on, you people. We are counting on you. Don't wuss out. We are at a serious crossroad here. If you guys drop the ball on this, we will be in deeper shit than we are now.
Do something! Impeach. Investigate. Indict. Something. Hinder this adminstration anyway you can. They can't be bargained with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or pain. And they absolutely will not stop until you are dead. (I'd like to thank the original Terminator movie for giving me the perfect line movie dialog to describe BushCo)
It's not about cutting taxes. It's about making sure he and his neo-con oil baron, war mongering buddies don't have to pay taxes. Or deal with the collapsing dollar, or the collapsing housing market, or the exorbitant debt he's wracking up, or collapsing infrastructure. It's all about maintaining the status quo for the 100 or so rich folks he still considers "worthy" of his attention.
This thing looks to be revenue neutral (ie., they're going to take away tax breaks in return for lower overall taxes).
So I'd probably keep it on hand and maybe throw it out there as a sop when Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
That way, the treasury would get more money but the Democrats can claim they're cutting taxes for those who create jobs, versus the idle rich.
We need to tax the hell out of those rich fat cat Republicans and corporate greed mongers and rich people who earn over $90,000 per year. It is outrageus that there can be such rich people and then there are those earning less than $35,000 per year. This is completely unfair, and Bush's tax policies only help the rich. Power to the people!!!
And, one more thing, we need to get out of Iraq right now, like our Democrats in congress promised to get elected. Our military is too strong for our own good.
Of course he's the Manchurian (now president), the ones who pull the strings are Cheney and Co. I said it before, Bush is just a figurehead been put there by the House of Saud, Carlyle, AIPAC, Cheney and his buddies.
They still pay taxes? I thought they'd all been exempt for a while now. Just another ploy so if the Dems balk at it in an election year Rethugs can tout the "They will raise your taxes" meme again. I've been hearing that crap since I was a little kid.
He's the Manchurian Imbecile, the Manchurian Moron, the Manchurian ManMonkey, the Manchurian Ventriloguist Dummy, the Manchurian Plain Old Dummy, etc. etc etc.
will @ 18:
Thank you will, I resemble that comment. Though I did just get a raise. $20 extra dollars a week in my coffer. This after my boss gets back from a week in the Bahamas and I run the place all by myself. Now I'll only be coming up $320 short every month!!!
MamaLynn, your boss is just like those greedy Republicans. He or she should be taxed that $350 shortfall that you have and see how the poor are trying to get by.
I sure bet that all those people who can afford vacations in places like the Bahamas like things just the way they are. They need to be taxed. Why should they get vacations when others are working 24/7.
Got a better idea: get rid of the War on (Some) Drugs. That will free up about 40-60 billion, at least. Should be enough to fix every road and bridge in 'Murikah. Oh, but that's right, we gotta 'save the chil-drunnnnnn!' from the scourge of 'mair-ee-wanna'! And if a decrepit bridge falls and crushes them into strawberry jam in the meantime, well, that's jes' "Gawwwd's will!"
A nation that has this much trouble admitting problems with basic infrastructure and still throws money at chimerical pursuits such as creating what has never existed in history - a 'drug free society' - is a society doomed to meet the fate of so many in children's history books: that of a footnote...
I've got a better idea: get rid of all the loopholes and kickbacks so that the corps. pay the 39% they're supposed to, instead of paying nothing.
Rupert Murdoch somehow gets away without paying taxes. HEY I.R.S-- here's a tip, go get Rupert Murdoch!
It's clear that Bush's MBA is honorary, not earned.
nemo @ 24:
Unfortunately, our infrastructure is so fucked that $40-60 billion wouldn't even make a dent into improving it.
nemo, the'll NEVER get rid of the costly and wasteful War on Drugs because so much of the "drug law enforcement" industry is being subsidized by the government. They're the ones getting much more money than the drug dealers ever did. And they're getting our tax money to fight this phony War on Drugs.
I agree with Swashbuckler--let's start using tax cuts to solve foreign policy issues. With that in mind, here's the new Bush Tax Surge:
1. Give al Sadr a huge capital gains tax cut. After al Sadr sells all his securities, he'll make a financial killing subsequently halting all his plans for political power.
2. Osama bin Laden would easily succumb to a special income tax loophole for having "a natural primary residence", i.e. cave.
3. al Qaeda is ripe for some kind of tax break for non-profit organizations that outsource their primary work load--a late night amendment into a spending bill by an unknown congressperson would go a long way here.
4. Kim Jong il is holding his breath for an unrestricted "entertainment spending" loophole.
and so on...
will @ 18:
Right on,Will. Tax the shit out of those fat cats. We should all be making the same amount of money whether we contribute or not. Power to everyone. It's the only way to economic prosperity- it's been proven countless times throughout history. Why won't Bush listen to guys like you? Evil bastard.
Conservatives are always filled with nostalgia for the good old days of the 50's. The prosperity of the 50's was fueled by the massive government social program called the G.I. Bill and the massive tax on corporations. Tell a conservative this and his head will explode.
"Supply side economics" was, is and will always be a fallacy contrived on the back of a napkin, a dodge to justify greed, avarice and the rape of the U.S. Treasury, a crime against the people to steal their money to enrich the rich. Reverse Robin Hood government policy. Arthur Laffer is a fraud. A charlatan. A pseudo academic, typical of the type of intellectually dishonest lowlifes that the GOP seems to spew ad nauseum.
[Deleted. Banned poster, americahatesearth]
will @ 23:
I propose a solution:
Draw a line at $150,000 for couples and $100,000 for individuals.Everyone below that line will receive tax cuts for:
overtime,incentives, bonuses,awards,2nd and 3rd jobs,stock options etc.
A targeted tax relief program would reward the REAL performers in the economy instead of the 2% that exploit such employees.
No, Bush is not a wind up doll. He is an employee; his bosses are the corporations that are the true government of this so-called "country". He's just doing what he's told, earning his perks and his paycheck and he doesn't care who knows it.
Off course the good for nothing Democrats will just give him what he needs. Those fucking Democrats. they really don't have the power they are still holding up by the minority. The repukleans are still in power.
Radically moderate, I agree with you, no individual should be allowed by the government to earn more than $100,000 so long as there are those with less. Anything over $100,000 should be returned as taxes for the poor. This is the Christian way, which so many phony Republicans claim to be.
dennis @ 31:
That was not in the text you quoted, setting up strawmen are we?
Will, do you really think people earning 90 grand are rich? Believe me, I'd like to make that much, but that wouldn't make me "rich". That's not even upper middle-class anymore. You sound like a complete socialist. Everyone should earn the same thing? Give me a break.
Corporations and the mega-rich don't need any more tax breaks or loopholes. They need to pay what they're supposed to.
The upper limit on Social Security contributions should be raised to $250,000 -- not the $90,000 it currently is. That would raise sorely needed billion$ to replenish the SS Trust Fund.
Is the Bush regime an Al-Queda sleeper cell? Seems to me they are hell bent on destroying America. I expect any day now for Bush to pull of a rubber mask revealing the face of a laughing Osama Bin-Laden. "Ha ha ha! This is why you could not find me! I've been here in the Oval Office punking you all along! Ha ha ha!"
will @ 23:
He is a greedy republican, though calls himself a "moderate". And yes, I suppose he is a moderate for this place, which is why I'm leaving as soon as I can afford to, which with that extra $20 might be ever sooner than never.
Oh, and Dennis, it is not about all of us making the same amount of money, it is about fairness. I work harder than he does, yet can't keep my head above water. I don't eat out, don't drive a fancy car, keep my daughter in decent, but not the greatest daycare, live with others to split rent/utilities, paid off all my credit card debt, pay over $3000 a year for health insurance that never pays for anything, wear the same 6 outfits to work every day because I can't afford clothing for myself, just spent 5 minutes this morning blacking out the scuffs on my shoes with a black marker to look slightly more presentable. And yet he can blow money on plane tickets to the Bahamas for himself, his girlfriend, his 7 year old son, a babysitter, her boyfriend and a 42" plasma tv for his boat, not his house honey, his boat then has the audacity to complain about the $5000 American Express bill he got in the mail. I took a three day weekend and drove four hours to Athens, spent $60 in gas to get there and back and get home to a note from the insurance company saying they got me a $5 discount on a $130 doctor's bill they've decided they want to put towards my deductible, when they get the bills they decide to pay reduced by 40%. Now I'm screwed and have to figure out how I'm going to come up with the money to pay that.
Please tell me what about any of that sh*t is fair?
Of course we need a taxbreak so Paris Hilton can get another Porta-Potty purse for her pooch.
Just wait when the US dollar is dumped by China, Japan and no country wants it.. Since Bush has taken over--the dollar has dropped by 37%. Folks--it will tank a lot lower. Next thing after lack of taxcollection is--government gets to own your farm and tractor.
the repubs think they'll be raptured before the interest payments on the trillions Bush has added to the debt come due.
Computer Era Corporate Innovations
From "Innovations of the Paperless Age, Cognitorex Press."
Hire basic labor force at less than full time thereby shedding the cost of health care, pensions and seniority benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.
Transfer previously tax paying internal accounting divisions to Offshore Tax Havens. Transfer savings to executive management.
Underfund pension obligations, then enter bankruptcy to avoid promised worker retirement benefits. Transfer savings to executive management.
Reduce corporate payments of total U.S. taxes collected from a 21% share to a 7% share over last twenty/thirty years. Transfer savings to CEO salaries.
Labels: CEO embezzlement, national health plan, what pensions, oink for CEOs
His timing is right on.
The banks bailouts have begun.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8PM3DfGxMnU&refer=home
It won't be long before the US Taxpayer's debt goes up a few trillion dollars in order to save the crooks that made money by loaning lots of money to people they knew couldn't repay the loans. The tax payer will cover their losses. Its win win for corporate irresponsibility.
If you can make money by loaning money to dead beats and you know the taxpayer will cover you losses with a tidy profit for doing so, why not screw the taxpayer?
MamaLynn @ 42:
Please tell me what about any of that sh*t is fair?
Can't tell you it is fair, and I sincerely wish you well. But I wouldn't obsess over how this guy decides to spend his money- that's wasted energy. I'd focus more on letting his boss know your relative value to the company versus his and make sure your hard work gets noticed.
On a day after China is threatening the United States with the financial sell off of our Dollar, potentially sending the United States back into a bigger depression than the last depression/dust bowl days....
And this yahoo wants to borrow more money from my future grandchildren to give money to companies that already pay no taxes, putting us more at risk... just what did this president learn in college? Maybe we should turn the country over to Laura... I bet that she had to balance the family checkbook once in awhile.
I'd druther have a boosh wind up doll than a boosh inflatable doll.
Unless you punch it in the nose, it falls back to the floor, then springs up again for another.
LibertyLover @ 49:
Barney's dump on the taxpayers would be smaller and less smellier.
LibertyLover@49 -- what did Busholini learn in college? HOW TO PARTY! I don't think he's ever learned a thing in his life because daddy and his cohorts have ALWAYS covered little Georgie's ass.
George @ 44:
Right George, those two countries would just love to contribute to their own demise because they hate the US so much and have so little faith in our economy. I'm sure they think the global recession that would create would do them wonders.
ysbaddaden @ 51:
I'm not sure I understand that.
To cover the bad investments our banks have made in the real estate debacle, Barney is probably going to have to give the banks a few trillion dollars and bill the taxpayer for it.
jr @ 45:
To wake up one morning and they're all gone! Only raptured straight to hell, with the devil driving backwards at high speed in a souped-up convertible.
[Deleted. Banned poster]
[...] Others blogging this courtesy memeorandum: The Atlantic Online, The Carpetbagger Report, Crooks and Liars, Washington Monthly and Oliver Willis Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking [...]
lolsheep @ 56:
This is in process now. China, Saudi Arabia and others have been unwinding their dollar investments for a few years now.
Remember the price of gasoline in 2000?
lolsheep @ 56:
China would be a winner in the long run, as they are going for the superpower status themselves, with increased impact in Asia and Africa. Please note that China is currently securing the resources in Africa, going to space, and generally paying for their development with some 140 000 deaths in their industry each year, to improve their standing/economy. Also, there is the small matter of US backed Taiwan, where mainland China are lacking sufficient navy/airforce to invade, yet.
With respect to Japan, with your occasional "lumping" of all foreigners together, you might be forgetting that Japan killed more Chinese during 1938-1945, than Germany killed during WW2. Its a small fact overlooked by non chinese, but they have not forgotten, and Japan has never apologized for it.
Bush Bites @ 9:
Check the numbers yourself, corporations are paying close to 30% tax on the profits they generate. Raising corporate taxes only means that you and I will be paying more for the goods and services we consume. The other half of the story which is apparently being missed here is that tax rates on personal income in western Europe are amongst the highest on the planet. Taxing consumption, e.g. implementing a plan like the FairTax, of course with compassionate allowances for the least among us, is the best way to ensure the wealthiest among us will always pay their fair share, and eliminates wasteful government bureaucracy in the process.
With the ever-increasing number of people on this planet to support, our very survival depends on economic growth, and free market capitalism (of course with licensing and regulation of business) has been proven to be the best system to fuel that growth reliably, efficiently and with fairness for all. Those who view corporations and CEOs as evil entities to be punished obviously cannot discern between healthy growth and destructive greed, and clearly do not have the best interests of our country (and the world) at heart.
There is no idyllic existence to be had, where people live off the land and barter for their daily sustenance. We certainly don't want a return to the disease and premature death experienced prior to industrialization. The "peace and love" hippie commune thing is serving some small niche, e.g. The Farm in Tennessee, but such an approach is totally impractical on a wide scale, even with the infusion of some modern technology. Can you picture the air pollution (and resulting respiratory issues) if even a small town of 10,000 burned everything they could get their hands on to cook and stay warm? Now imagine that in Seattle, Chicago or NYC.
Our economy depends on people being able to afford to buy what out economy produces. Otherwise the only buyers are in countries better paid than we are. But if they're outsourcing their manufacturing bases as well, that means the only people with the money to buy are the one who own the various businesses, but none of their workers, especially in countries where the going wage is something ridiculous like 35 cents an hour.
This is a transnational way of McDonaldizing economies.
You wanna make American corporations more competitive in the world marketplace? Easy! Remove the burden of providing health insureance from employers and put it on the government. Cost of goods will decrease, exports, employment and small businesses will increase and healthcare can be made universal.
D'UH!!!
Chip, you comments make perfect sense if energy was unlimited.
If the volume of oil in the Earth exceeded the boundaries of space and time, then our money supply and energy consumption could grow until new limits got in the way.
Everything we do, consumes energy. Every industry consumes energy. Money and markets direct the flow of energy and the productivity of money has a direct relationship to industry, and thus to energy. Energy then can considered to be the source of all wealth, with money being the means by which to trade it.
It looks like we may well be passing the peak of conventional oil production and though we'll continue to pump and consume oil for decades to come, every year there will be less, while our population continues to grow. So the potential to produce goods and services will decline, while population and the money supply increases.
One simply mistake commonly made is the idea that we can create energy. We can't. We simply capture energy that already exists somewhere. We're using up the best sources and now we'll have to go back to 19th century energies supplies and try to make the most of those, while trying to use them up as fast as possible.
A lot folks talk about alternatives, but these sources only provide a fraction of the energy we are accustomed to using.
Imagine if you knew that starting now, every year for the rest of your life, your pay would diminish by 5%. How would that work out for you? That is essentially what we are facing.
We could create massive quantities of money to chase a declining quantity of goods and services,... but wait. Oh yeah, that's what we are doing.
As long as this is the one song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--T2Li_xtQ
Weaseldog @ 63:
My observations/comments are not based on an assumption we have an unlimited supply of energy, but that was a nice attempt on a strawman argument on your part all the same.
You'd have to think that Bush is one of those sexual deviants that enjoys a good kick in the nuts, because he keeps bringing up issues that are sure to blow up in his face.
How can we cut taxes at the same time when people are dying on our crumbling, underfunded bridges?
Who owns the Congress and this President?
Why the f*cking corporations, that's who.
Here's my plan. Eliminate all personal income taxes on people under $200k/yr and raise the taxes on corporations.
And make the tax rate 100% on media corporations (yeah, force 'em to sell).
Chip @ 60:
Bullshit! The reason this country is so screwed up right now is because of "free market capitalism " gone wild! GREED GREED GREED.
The whole of Washington is bought and paid for by "Free Marketeers".
Your fear mongering on having the "little people" have a say so in Government will return us to disease and chaos is straight out of the Rove manual of deception.
It ain't gonna work any longer!
I was just listening to Preznit Boob on NPR. "Uhh,,,", "Derrrrr...", "Um...". It's painful! A "reporter" asked him if he had seen details about Nouri al-Maliki's visit with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The "reporter" stated that they appeared quite friendly with each other and that the sentiment was something like al-Maliki believed that Iran has been very supportive of Iraq. So what does the boob in chief offer in reply?
1.) I don't want to speculate until I see what comes from our embassy (this took about ten "Ums.." and "durps.." to finally produce).
2.) You generally try to be cordial to the party you're meeting with; "You don't put up your dukes" (press core laughter) "That's an old boxing phrase" (more laughter) Riotous, really riotous Preznit Boob!.
4.)"If al-Maliki really said that I would have to have a discussion with him; I believe in his heart of hearts he does not believe that".
3.) I was too stupefied to pick up on point No. 3, there goes my journalism career!
This guy is a backpedaling (backpeddling?) fool of an optimist, if you listen to him why General Petr-anus is winning the occupation, we've got programs in place to educate people about the details of sub-prime mortgage contracts so they don't sign on to something that they can't really afford, etc, etc, etc. How is somebody so completely inept (even at speaking or producing basic, complete sentences that include primitive context) the leader of America? We’re so fucked!
I think a good example of how the marketplace cannot solve very many of societal ills is the sub-prime loan collapse. The idea behind it was laudable, to make money and loans available to buy homes by people who otherwise couldn't afford it. The sub-prime loans was a marketplace way of making that happen. Then already home owning borrowers borrowed against their houses for everything from vacations to college funds for kids, because of the now "extra" income from lower monthly house payments. Some middle-class families's depended on this money when their jobs vanished due to outsourcing and layoffs. Here in Texas they even got rid of the Homestead Act from our state Constitution arguing to the public that the government shouldn't tell them how to spend their money, when in actuality the government was protecting their houses from debt collectors (mechanic and tax liens excepted.)
Then when interest rates flew up massive default rose exponentially from both the poorer and the middle classes who could no longer afford their monthly payments and due the bankruptcy "reforms" had no other choice. This is threatening our economic viability as well as the international banking system. Today the French banking system put a freeze on many of their accounts in American banks.
All this happened due to a marketplace "solution" to our overpriced housing market.
bilhelm-X @ 69:
No D'ohs!
Chip @ 65:
Not a strawman. It goes to the heart of the matter. you are right that our system is dependant on infinitely increasing growth and consumption. Our system requires that the quantity of oil in the Earth also be infinite.
This is a huge problem.
As we slide past peak oil, our economic system is going to shatter and take down the global economy. And we're doing nothing at all to prepare for this, except to move to a fascist dictatorship. Even that can't hold as we know that complex centralized systems break down when available energy is reduced.
Case in point, Russia's oil production peaked and went into decline in 1987. Remember what happened after?
ysbaddaden, have you seen this? The bailout is beginning. These are the first few pebbles in the avalanche that is coming.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8PM3DfGxMnU&refer=home
Additionally a Strawman argument, or Argumentum Ad Reductio, is an accusation of one oversimplifying an opponent's argument, not making the equation even more complicated as in this case.
Adam Smith spoke of limited supply of goods and services and made it a centerpiece for his Wealth of Nations in 1776, and it provides the basis for the Loeffler curve. Thomas Malthus also spoke spoke of this limitation in An Essay on the Pricinciples of Population in 1798, later picked up by Charles Darwin in his Origin of the Species in 1859.
Yep. A jukebox that only plays one song. "Achy Breaky Heart." Please shoot me now.
Weaseldog @ 73:
Bush acts like he owns our government. And you know what, he's f*ckin' right (he and his corporate/banking elite buddies).
Katrina victims, they gotta fend for themselves, but those poor banks they need help. Sheesh.
Weaseldog @ 72:
Since I never said our survival was dependent on infinite growth, you are extending your strawman argument, and now putting words in my mouth to do it.
crazylove @ 55:
That would be heaven on earth then, wouldn't it? ;)
ysbaddaden @ 74:
No, the fallacy involves a misrepresentation of the original argument, not necessarily limited to oversimplification.
I'm sure some folks will benefit from the history lesson. Now, your point is?
Chip @ 77:
You wrote:
With the ever-increasing number of people on this planet to support, our very survival depends on economic growth, and free market capitalism (of course with licensing and regulation of business) has been proven to be the best system to fuel that growth reliably, efficiently and with fairness for all. Those who view corporations and CEOs as evil entities to be punished obviously cannot discern between healthy growth and destructive greed, and clearly do not have the best interests of our country (and the world) at heart.
I took the phrase 'ever-increasing number of people' and 'survival depends on economic growth' to mean that an ever-increasing population led to ever-increasing economic growth. I read the phrase, 'ever-increasing' as to mean, 'infinite'.
If this isn't what you meant to say, just say so. I don't see though how I could take you words to mean something that you didn't express.
I think that you just wrote the argument down in the well established format that we can find in such publications as, 'Economist'. In that publication, they often do write about how expanding the money supply will create an infinite supply of resources.
If we don't cut corporate taxes on a regular basis:
1. The terrorists win.
2. The Baby Jesus cries.
3. I'll kill this puppy.
Oh yeah, that goes for the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the top tax bracket rates also.
Tax cuts...For corporations...Again... The only idea he knows... a tired worn out idea.. I don't care what Laffler or whomever the supply side guru is or was.... Fuck all those conservative economists alive or dead who touted these financial philosophies... IT AIN'T WORKING!!!! Take a good look around... IT AIN'T FUCKING WORKING!!!! Milton Friedman? If you were alive I'd spit on your face and call you an over educated idiot!!!
But you're not.. It's just your pathetic ideas and theories that live on.... So Chimpy Bush pushes this lone idea up the flagpole one.. more.. time... A one trick pony, a one note tune... From the one moron and chief.......JD
79 Weaseldog
That's also because he was using Ignoratio Elenchi which is attempting to prove a point not under discussion or tangential to the discussion. Reductum, as in Argumentum ad Reductio means to reduce something. Very rarely do you reduce something by adding to it. That's just basic math.
I have an idea that may run counter to whatever everyone else thinks.
Every citizen living and earning a salary in this country and enjoying the benefits should help pay for it.
TEvery citizen, above a 'poverty' line will pay taxes at a graduated scale from 1% for those just above the poverty line to some percentage tbd. for the rich.
Corporations will pay a nominal rate depending on certain criteria.
A reasonable profit. Excess profits through gouging consumers will be taxed on a graduated scale.
Reasonable pay for executives. Anything unreasonable will be assessed a tax
The term 'Reasonable' tbd.
Foreign customers benefiting from this scheme will pay a 'consumer tax' per product, since they don't pay income taxes
The rationale is that if less and less taxes are collected from citizens, more and more taxes will be collected from corporations, whose money trees have died so they resort to raising prices. Everytime they raise prices, it acts the same as a flat tax. The rich and the poor alike will pay the extra 10 cents for a loaf of bread, etc. This tends to hurt the poor while the rich will not even notice.
Many of the tax deductions and credits should be re-examined and eliminated if possible.
79 Weaseldog
The phrase in question is an example of Fallacy of Ambiguity.
However, since the thread under discussion is about tax policy, and some posters are trying to make it about normative economics I would suggest that they're using the Fallacy of Contradictive Premises, that's also common in the Corporate World.
For a market to be totally free not only would it have no government interferrance but also no government help, so such perks as competitive zones, special tax breaks, and other incentives, and particularly TAX CUTS not shares by the public at large are contrary to the concept of the free market.
Sorry for the typos, but it's time for lunch.
ysbaddaden, I sometimes forget that the meaning of words are fluid and unknown. This is demonstrated anytime we try to understand what Bush is saying to us.
I tend to try to apply a lose rigor to the meaning of words and expect that people are using words to convey what they are trying to express. I seem misinterpret a lot of experts in economics when I apply logical and mathematical rigor to their arguments.
Its a failing of mine, that I expect that people will, mean what they say and say what they mean.
Laissez Faire capitalism - been there, done that.
Tax cuts for the rich - been there too, done that too.
In analyzing tax policy during the last Republican ascendency, which was during the 1920's historian J.D. Hicks wrote:
"Money poured in at the top tended to stay there, money poured in at the bottom tended to rise up and enrich all levels of society."
He wrote this in 1960, long before anyone ever heard of "voodoo economics."
Tax cuts for the rich only benefit the rich.
Weaseldog @ 87:
Sometimes you have to listen for what is NOT being said by polititions.
Every time he makes these tax cuts to corporations, he fucks us. I live in Canada and as a Canadian I know that everything that happens to the US economically happens to us. Even if it's after shocks and not the full blow. But this is going to fuck us more. More businesses may move south if the tax cuts are lucrative enough. And less willing to come up north.
One more thing, NAFTA. Besides Kucinich, who was honest, and said he'd get rid of it, the others just spouted some platitudes about doing what's best for Americans. I have a grand fucking idea, Democratic hopefuls; how about honoring your agreements. I think this would go a long way to healing the wounds created in the international world by being a dishonest outlaw state. This is just as imperative as doing what's best for Americans. Canada has won every NAFTA trade dispute over the illegal 27% tariff on lumber. The US government has not complied. Your country is the most dishonest in dealing with other countries. Makes me angry and ill that these fuckers can get away with blatant lawlessness.
Wonder what the title of that one sone is---the Horst Wessel Lied?
Weaseldog @ 87:
You'll notice I did the same thing when I finished a posting by saying, "Very rarely do you increase something by adding to it. That's just basic math."
I was being generic in my comments but they were addressed to our conservatives, trolls, and Chip in particular.
ysbaddaden @ 92:
You came in loud and clear. But then you're a Texan. Its a tradition among natives to be straight talkers.
Weaseldog @ 93:
Ith thith better, you big thilly?
ysbaddaden @ 94:
Doh! I think they are paging you on the Bob Allen thread.
Another tax cut? Bush is mad - insane - crazy - loopy. What a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do.
Finally, the way out of Iraq!
Reduce taxes to ZERO and let voluntary contributions pay for the war.
Weaseldog @ 95:
Either that or the Simpsons.
since the very first moment bush put his sweaty hand on the bible a took the oath as president of the american people he has spoken to one segment of our country and one segment only, his base. there was never an intention to govern for the people, all of the people. he has done all he can for only a segment of the people and that segment has grown smaller and smaller all the time..governing for his base has now become governing for the haves and the have mores. he no longer needs the votes of the republican party or evangelical christians. when was that last tiem he spoke in public about the sanctity of marriage and all that other rhetoric he spit out in 04. and for the remainder of his unfortunate term he will work his butt off to change the balance of wealth and power deeper into the hands and pockets of "his" people. middle class, he dont need no stinkin middle class.
Oh yah, let's give them more breaks because they're doing so much to help our society. Isn't that the age-old Republican argument?
This country is soooo over.
o'really @ 90:
Heh, you just reminded me of all the antidumping tariffs they have against our salmon hatcheries/sea farms.
ysbaddaden @ 92:
My brain musta broke, it was supposed to say, as it did in the original comment, "Very rarely do you reduce something by adding to it. That’s just basic math."
Damn short term memory loss!
[Fred, Not only do you have trouble with spelling, you are rude and know nothing of economics-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Try to make your point without insult or flame baiting.]
Everyone… if you hate these tax cuts so much and want to force other people to pay more, why don’t you write the IRS a check and mail it to them to make it up? Lead by example. Don’t be a greedy person… if you make $30,000 a year you should give 60% of that to the government, since someone in this country (and others) earn less than $30,000. God, is seems like nearly everyone needs some basic economic lessons.
Fred @ 103:
Sorry Fred, but you are mistaken.
[Deleted. Try to make your point without insult or flame baiting.]
Markets »
Updated: 4:01 pm ET, August 09
Dow 13,283.03 -374.83 (-2.74%)
Nasdaq 2,556.49 -56.49 (-2.16%)
S&P 1,454.58 -42.91(-2.87%)
[Get your own blog. Set your own rules. Bye-Sitemonitor]
Capitalist American Pig 'Tard @ 107:
... Don't be a lemming like the rest of the libs out there, be unique, be an individual and think for yourself. The world is brighter on the right. Despite what the libs think, education is not dangerous.
That's rich, pigtard! Your rightwing politicos certainly show how to think for themselves, don't they? Polly wanna tax cut? Tax cuts are good! Trickle down! Squack!
No, education is not dangerous -- but the lack of education in this country certainly is!
[Take to your own kind of blog. We're not interested in your economic fantasies and fairy tales. Bye-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Abusive]
Corporation don't pay taxes, you do. Every dollar of tax placed on a business is past down to the consumer. If they sell their product, labor or what not for $80 and they pay $20 tax they charge you $100. Just like they don't really pay half of the SS and Medicare tax (payroll tax). That money comes out of what they will pay you for your time and skills. If they wind up paying too much tax those evil rich will just close their business and all of you that do all the work wont have any. If you get punished for working harder and making more money are you going to?
Actually, the Office of Management and Budget is predicting a surplus by 2012.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/white-house-lowers-deficit-forecas...
OMB now projects a surplus of $33 billion in 2012, down slightly from the forecast of $61 billion seen in January.
The budget deficit has been declining since tax cuts were enacted:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/12/national/main1703804.shtml?sou...
"Through the first eight months of the budget year, the deficit totaled $227 billion, down 16.7 percent from the same period in 2005, when the red ink totaled $272.3 billion."
And if you think that just the rich benefit, you are wrong again:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/...
"- Using money income only, income inequality -- the gap between rich
and poor -- showed no change when measured by the Gini index or
household quintile shares."
"- However, using the four alternative income definitions, income
inequality declined over the 2001-2002 period. The Gini index
declined and the share of aggregate household income increased for
households in the middle 60 percent of the income spectrum and
declined for the highest 20 percent."
[Thanks for your poorly thought out and erroneous commentary. Bye-Sitemonitor]
Jason @ 114:
Tax cuts across the board are good for people AND the economy. How'd you make out w/Duhbya's tax cuts for the wealthy Jason??? Enlighten us. We're waiting.
gatorgreenwell @ 113:
And the US govt, under CheneyBushCo has never lied about anything. So we should believe the bullshit spun out by the Office of Management and Budget...Thanks, but I call extreme bullshit on this.
My thoughts, exactly, Miss Kitty!
[Bye-Sitemonitor]
Jason @ 114:
Refute anything I posted Jason. You can't. That info is not from 'right wing' sites. Just in case you need more:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7782/02-2007-MBR.pdf
Monthly Budget Review Feb. 20007, Congressional Budget Office
increasing revenues, deficit dropping
"Today's monthly Treasury statement shows that tax receipts have reached a new record and that we are moving in the right direction toward a balanced budget by 2012. This good news reflects the strong state of our economy. The President's tax relief has helped make this possible by creating the conditions for sustained economic growth and job creation."
- Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp224.htm Jan. 12, 2007
Increases in receipts from individual income taxes (up by $16 billion, or 12 percent) and social insurance taxes (up by $5 billion, or 4 percent) accounted for most of the increase in revenues. The bulk of the increases in those two tax sources was in amounts withheld from employees’ paychecks, which increased by almost $18 billion, or 7 percent, in October and November compared with receipts in the same two months of 2005. Those increases indicate that wages and salaries in the economy continue to grow strongly.http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7694&sequence=0 Dec. 6, 2006
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=156040,00.html
The SOI Bulletin includes an article on preliminary data from individual income tax returns for 2004. In 2004, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) rose for the second year in a row, increasing by 8.9 percent to $6.8 trillion. The largest component of AGI, salaries and wages, increased 6.0 percent to $4,977.9 billion, while net capital gains rose 53.2 percent to $442.1 billion. Taxable income increased 10.6 percent to $4.6 trillion.
It is sad that a strong economy and declining deficits upset so many economically uneducated people.
if you want to pay more taxes i'm sure the IRS would take them,
I for one would enjoy a cut in my taxes.
here's a bit of education for you all:
The aim of tax policy is to unleash the economy, not balance the federal budget . Although government cannot "grow" the economy, government can reduce its burden on the economy by lowering tax rates. High tax rates discourage the key foundations of economic expansion--working, saving, investing, and business development. Lower tax rates would trigger economic growth that would create more jobs, raise incomes, and decrease poverty.
Some politicians invoke the slogans "fiscal discipline" or "fiscal responsibility" as excuses not to cut tax rates. Only in Washington would these mottos mean government's taking more money while increasing spending on wasteful government programs. True fiscal discipline would entail government's taking less from people. Sadly, when some politicians cite "fiscal discipline," they mean fiscal discipline for American families, not for Washington.
Americans keeping more of the money they earn?! What crazy tactic will they try next? Sarcasm aside, I see a direct correlation between lowering taxes and encouraging spending. I also see a direct correlation between increased spending ability and the strength of the economy. Call me crazy.
NOTE: Automatically discounting everything Bush says because we don't like him is simple and stupid.
Hey Gator -- still swallowing what the Bushit admin spoonfeeds the masses, eh? These morons don't tell the truth about ANYTHING!
Any intelligent comments about the purge on Wall St? Or, perhaps you think sub-prime and 0% mortgages were a good idea.
Some other countries are beginning to understand how they can revive their stagnating economies. In 2003, the Germans did this:
BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- German lawmakers have passed a 15 billion euro ($18.6 billion) tax cut for next year, part of a batch of changes to spur the economy and trim the welfare state on which Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has staked his political future. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/19/germany.taxcut.ap/
Sweeping reductions in income tax are on the way in Germany after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his cabinet decided to bet on Germans' willingness to spend to save the stagnating economy. The reductions in income tax are worth about 18bn euros ($20.6bn; £12.3bn), and look likely to come into force next year rather than in 2005, as originally planned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3029676.stm
What was the result of Germany's massive tax cuts? Let's move forward to 2007:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,479149,00.html
"Experts in the government and academia are astonished over the strength of Germany's economic recovery. Unemployment is declining more rapidly and the government coffers are filling more quickly than during any other economic recovery in postwar German history. What's causing the powerful economic upswing?"
" Income tax revenues have also increased, and for a very simple reason: Hundreds of thousands of the previously jobless have found new jobs and are paying taxes again. Another beneficial effect for the federal and state tax authorities is that sales tax (VAT) revenues are increasing because people with new jobs tend to consume more readily than those receiving unemployment benefits."
Will the Germans now be criticized like Bush?
Dear Gator -- was the German tax cut ACROSS THE BOARD or was it modeled after Busholini's gift for the richest of the rich?
. . . crickets chirping . . . Gator??????????
Evilrightwingfanatic is 100% correct. Instead of emotions, cultural conditioning, political correctness and lazy attempts to mimic thinking ... examine the gross receipts at the Treasury. Examine the actual evidence.
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on August 23, 2006.
.... [Ahhh. The Moonie Times. Flamebait-Sitemonitor]
gatorgreenwell @ 123:
How much have the Germans borrowed? What's their budget deficit. Have they spent a trillion borrowed dollars in Iraq?
The citizenry of this nation used to SAVE some of their money, Jackson Hewitt. You pro-Busholini guys crack me up. I now ask YOU the same question I've asked Gator -- WTF has the tax cuts for the wealthy done for YOU?
Have you noticed the national debt? How about the pesky budget deficit? Clinton's surplus that was pissed away in short order by the cokehead in chief?
Fucking trolls can spew out their bullshit, but never back it up. Later, folks!
Dr. Acula @ 124:
You haven't actually read any of my posts, have you? Stop all of this 'tax cuts for the rich crap.'
And if you think that just the rich benefit, you are wrong again:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Re.....01371.html
“- Using money income only, income inequality — the gap between rich
and poor — showed no change when measured by the Gini index or
household quintile shares.”
“- However, using the four alternative income definitions, income
inequality declined over the 2001-2002 period. The Gini index
declined and the share of aggregate household income increased for
households in the middle 60 percent of the income spectrum and
declined for the highest 20 percent.”
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2007/january/pr109-107.pdf
Census bureau says income inequality unchanged since 2001
Notice that from 2000 to 2001, the percentage of taxes paid for all goups declined (a bit more for the higher brackets) as a result of tax cuts, and then every bracket percentage began to rise. Notice also that the percentage paid by the bottom 50% declined from year to year. Also, the threshold to get into each bracket declined and then began to rise.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
[Jeff. We don't deal in flamebaiting fantasies at this site. Take it elsewhere-Sitemonitor]
coleshack @ 32:
A lot of people's head's explode when they're filled with hot air.
Here are a few factors you 'forgot' to mention that may have played a roll: the value of the US Dollar was defined as a fix weight of gold, exchange rates were fixed, the Korean War, no Medicare, our major trading partners except one were rebuilding their country after a war you may have heard of, that one trading partner was trying to shore up its currency (called the Pound Sterling), dismantle its globe spanning empire, and experiencing the joy of "Full Employment in a Free Society", inflation had made our minimum wage essentially valueless, there was no EPA, consequently oil refineries could be built, and expanded at a reasonable cost, HMOs and PPOs didn't exist, and neither did Paris Hilton.
This list in by no means exclusive or exhaustive, but a little bit more complete.
Dr. Acula, sir. The tax cuts effect everybody. Even you, sir. Elementary economics is that the national debt is our currency. The dnaational debt cannot be eliminated. Mathematically impossible. I don't know how you will be able to understand that until you understand the fundamental nature of US currency. Our currency represents debt. The more 'national debt' there is, the more currency there is in circulation for me to work with, for you to work with, for everyone to work with ... within carefully modulated parameters.
I am the wealthy, sir. I was not always. I failed several times before getting it right. At no time did I blame the government, blame The System, blame others. It was MY fault for not understanding the markets as they actually work. I don't like taxes, the Founders of the Nation hated taxation. The Constitution was written specifically to blot out taxation on personal incomes. Power mad socialists in Congress overturned the Constitution in order to get at your income and mine. So long as we have a government of socialist practices, we will have deficits. Ipso facto. Strict Constitutionalist practices means real currency based on tangible wealth. Socialist practices means fiat currency based on debt. I'm willing for my Nation to quit borrowing money to pay for permissive social policies rotting out the core of my country, but so long as those in power promulgate a socialist governance, they must borrow in order to pay for their spending habits.We cannot pay for social programs from real tax receipts as envisioned by the Constitution. Only after mangling the Constitution so they could tax your income, was it possible to borrow privately lent money to pay for Congressional legislation. I'm surprised you're happy about that.
Deficit? Deficits mean nothing next to the real problem. Can you identify the real problem, Dr. Acula?
As to the surplus you reference, you reveal that you do not closely follow the long and short bond. Nor grasp the nastiness of politics played at the level of the three branches of our government. Clinton's political appointees wired a financial bomb, timed to go off if a Republican won the Executive. Clinton ordered all our debt refinanced into instruments timed to mature in the weeks following the (contested) election. That produced a sudden and dramatic effect on the markets, leading to a dearth of available capital. Dr. Acula, there's only so much capital in play, and that which the government absorbs is not productive. The bonds have to be paid when they mature and that takes capital out of the market that otherwise would be in play. The government's effect on the market is negative, the government produces nothing. The government only takes. That which we call The Markets, meaning business activity, produces revenues and increases capital. When the government over-borrows, as Clinton did, and when the government over-borrows and then pushes the repayment off onto the next guy in office ... to the uninformed it looks like the next guy in office has done something amiss, when in fact the Party of the First Part (Clinton), pulled a fast one and left a fuse lit for GWB to deal with. That's not just doing dirt to GWB, that's doing dirt to you and me. For Bill's benefit.
The markets all knew this, intimately, and capital being their communion and dogma, they had to react to this dastardly crime against all of us by shifting their activities from credit markets to equity markets. That produced a period of 'recession' ... meaning, a slowing of business activity when compared to the heady days of fast and loose credit policies empowered by Clinton ... such as Enron, QWEST, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, et al, interalia. Without the criminal policies of Clinton producing an atmosphere of fast and loose with the law, and with credit ... none of the above would happened.
The amazing thing is that GWB, knowing full well he would be handed a bag of flaming shiat upon taking office and the drive-by media were prepped and briefed that a recession was going to happen during his first year in office .... he stepped up and did the right thing anyway, enduring the flack, the barbs, the mockery and the stinging rebukes all the same, even though his policies turned the markets around and set us back on a proper course.
Yes, Dr. Acula. That does answer your question. Unfortunately, your position appears to support the abrogration of the Constituion, supports Big Government, supports extended and extensive borrowing from the Fed to make up for the lack of revenues and supports socialist policies which have been proven 100% throughout all of world history to be the most dgrading thing to man's freedom.
How say you, sir?
It seems like a lot of you are upset over this issue. But here's a question, how many of you actually care about this issue? Would it be as important if someone other than Bush made these tax cuts? It seems like everything Bush does you attack as the most evil thing in the world.
Also, since everything thinks this a bad idea to have tax cuts for these companies...what do you think should be done? Just raise taxes for the companies because they have lots of money......that might work for a little while until the companies that keep our economy going start folding or start facing trouble trying to provide their services due to exorbitant taxes.
Jackson Hewitt @ 133:
Joe M. @ 134:
Lord what a gasbag. A lot of words to justify self-serving bullshit.
And Joe M. Did it ever occur to you that it is wrong, no matter whose idea it is?
It's self thoughtless types like yourselves that are ruining the country's economy. Borrow and spend Thugs.
See ya in the poor house-soon-both of ya.
Miss_Kitty,
It seems that Jackson Hewitt is doing his Big Lebowski impersonation (I wasn't always wealthy but I've always been pompous)
LEBOWSKI
Hello! Hello! So every time--I
just want to understand this, sir--
every time a rug is micturated upon
in this fair city, I have to
compensate the--
I have been working for 3 decades now!
Under Carter - new to work force. No clue about sht becasue i was young and full of ...
Under Regan - took advantage of educational grants and opportunites, went from 30K starting to 6 figures under this administration.
Clinton - Few good years until Clinton polices finally started to take root, lost my job to end of term encomonic recession.
Bush - Tax cuts revilazed the economy, after 4 years of floundering opportunites began to imerge, and regained my 6 fiture income.
1. IF you bought a house you couldnt afford your a dubmass plain, and simple (or did bush put a gun to your head to buy somthing you could not afford?) so many house buyers just didnt want to see or understand that @ 50k annual income, maybe they should'nt buy a 600K house!
I do hate bush! he is an idiot, but his tax breaks were spot on and will be his only term acheivements.....
Flame wars, name calling, and powerful assertions. This is no way to conduct discussion such as this.
But then, the few times I venture near one of these 'forums', I am reminded once again that you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.
I am a strict Libertarian Constitutionalist. Real money for me. I have only enough Federal Reserve Notes to do nominal things. Gold for this man, and lots of it.
May you be blessed and at Peace
stomping your widdle feets, taking your gold and going? You ARE so superior and so god-like to deign to stoop to our level and poop allover us with your wealth of wisdom. Buh Bye.
Like I said I'll see you soon in the poorhouse...
Jackson Hewitt @ 138:
IS THIS YOU?
January 3, 2007
Jackson Hewitt, Inc. will pay $5 million, including $4 million in consumer restitution, to settle a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
The suit alleged that the nation's second-largest tax preparation firm violated state and federal laws in marketing high-cost refund anticipation loans (RALs) mainly to low-income customers.
"Jackson Hewitt made a lot of money by pushing customers to take out expensive loans rather than encouraging them to wait a couple of weeks to get their refunds from the IRS for free," said Lockyer. "In the process they deceived consumers and took money from low-income families who can least afford it. They even charged people extra for being poor.
"This settlement benefits consumers by holding Jackson Hewitt accountable for its conduct, prohibiting the unfair practices we targeted in our lawsuit and requiring the firm to conduct itself in a manner that could set the industry standard," Lockyer said.
The complaint alleges Jackson Hewitt violated 13 state and federal laws or rules that regulate debt collection practices, and prohibit unfair business practices, false or deceptive advertising, and unauthorized use or sharing of individuals' tax return information."
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/01/ca_jackson_hewitt.html
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Chip @ 60:
I don't have the time or accounting knowledge to dig into this, but I believe this estimation to be bullshit accounting. What it LOOKS like is analogous to one taking in all their money, spending it (eg in salaries to the people who own a huge portion of the companies), and then paying a big fat thirty percent in taxation on what is LEFT over...I'm not taking the time to deconstruct and analyze but there was mention of gains in taxation of like 14 Billion.....pays for about 36 hours in Iraq I believe.
What an ASSTARD! He has no clue.
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring
Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central
Command: 4079
I hate G.B. as much as the next man. But the more I think about it the more I believe that Americans are severely mentally retarded! Everyone hated him from the beginning. He is a lazy self serving bastard trying and succeeding in making personal gain through the office of the president. His companies have been raking in the loot since he picked the fight in Iraq. And somehow he managed to win a reelection bid even after people found out the he lied about everything! Seriously Kerry was no can o' peaches either, but Americans will keep to the bi partisan system till death do them part. I wouldn't trust any candidate from the 2 major parties to watch my kid and you all are trusting them with your country?! Ralph Nader is the only person in politics that has made a positive impact in Americans lives with the work he did in the 60's to make the car companies make their cars safer. He gets ignored for his efforts. Take your Patriot Act and enjoy your new "freedom"
By the way, voodoo economics don't work. Demand doesn't trickle down, it FLOWS up. All that voodoo economics do are run up deficits, which can be used to justify cutting social programs and other government protection, leaving people even more unprotected from the machinations of the capital class.
V V
[Deleted. Abusive]
Keep your grubby paws OFF of my wallet!
[Well Barry, in a quid pro quo move, I'd suggest you keep your grubby wheels off our roads, kids out of our schools, feet off our sidewalks...see where this no taxes thing goes? Sitemonitor]
Radically Moderate @ 35:
so you're saying a doctor doesnt perform?
Corporations never pay tax, individuals do. They always pass the tax down to us. Now here's the dillema .. they've already done the marketing and priced their products and services with the old tax accounted for. Will corps rollback their prices when the tax is lower? .. unless the tax shows up on your bill separately like a cable bill don't hold your breath. Corporate tax cuts are ineffective in rallying support from the masses. Top down tax cuts do not work.
Solution? National sales tax. Get rid of income tax, its a mess and ppl are losing their homes and lives over an illegitimate tax on our labors. (when labor is clearly defined in the constitution as an exchange of your time for wages)
Bushie.. if he's serious about raising his rep.. should put legislation in place to fix the health care industry, a cap on lawyers' fees so they're not profiteering and changing our laws through precedent, incorporate a flat fair tax system, .. and maybe pay senators and congressmen minimum wage.. they're "civil servants" they should be making a modest wage in line with what they expect us all to live on.
The bottom line is, the guy who cuts the pie, should be the last to choose a piece. What we have through and through are guys cutting pies and taking the first piece. This creates gross inequity which leads to crime and other symptoms of a sick society. If we fix the things that make people gutsick and anxious, we'll have a better society overall.
God, could Steve be more of an idiot?
The only way a government can "help" an economy is the same way a python can "help" it's victim: Quit squeezing! FTA: "The deficit is high, the debt is growing ..." Wrong on both counts, but don't let facts interrupt your (lack of) thought process.
132 Jackson Hewitt
Once deficits increase the government has to pay more money to pay off only the interests on the money they borrowed, sometimes not touching the principle. When the government has to pay more money on these funds, less money is circulating for loans to business and households. It also destroys our credit rating. Presumably countries don't go bankrupt, but if the credit is bad, it makes international borrowing more expensive, thus reducing the circulation even more and increasing the need to borrow.
Come to think of it that's what's happened to some peripheral countries. They borrowed so much internationally that the IMF and the WTO set repayment schedules that can be quite onerous, and affect future development plans, which of course can lean to social unrest.
Comments are closed on this entry