Obama says ending tax breaks required to cut deficit

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


I'm male and I'm an educator. Feminist agenda indeed.

The reason the shovel ready program was useless is because everything is built already. They don't need slave labor, they need highly precise, well-educated professionals who can accurately repair our infrastructure. No more houses need to be built, they need to be occupied.
edit on 3-7-2011 by Sphota because: Removing the rude part




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


Plus, it's hard to need a lot of jobs to build a road these days with those behemoths that pave stretches of road more efficiently than a team of Hooverville residents.

Go to the grocery stores, automated check out.

Go to the gas station, pump your own.

Call for technical assistance, mostly automated.

Pay your bills, all online.

Manufacturing, all in China.

What do you want people to do to bring home the bacon, exactly?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 




No, the taxes need to be raised for the right reasons. The spending needs to stop for the wrong junk. You nailed it with corporate welfare. BUt that's not enough. Sure, we should stop giving them handouts and now they need to start paying for the roads and infrastructure they use (and for the lack of employment they create).


A blanket statement like "taxes need to be raised for the right reasons" is irresponsible. And many corps pay big bucks for road improvements that benefit all, not just their employees. They also routinely purchase firefighting equipment and EMS eqpt. that benefits all. Plus the amount of money that their employees return to the tax base is very significant. America could not run on yours and my tax contributions alone.


The wars are unsustainable (and immoral, but I guess we're only talking the economic side for now) and they are the biggest money drain at the moment. Not public education, not my nana's social security check, not pensions (that are prenegotiated savings, i.e., the person's money already, not some special bonus) for teachers, not medicare or medicaid or foodstamps. None of that is draining this economy. There is one thing, and one thing only that is draining the funds of this nation, and that is the energy-defense privatization coup that occurred some time before 9/11, but at least became apparent to me after that.


Energy privatization? What do you mean? Are you suggesting that we nationalize energy? That's just what Algore and Obama want to do with cap and trade tax. No thanks.
edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 




Plus, it's hard to need a lot of jobs to build a road these days with those behemoths that pave stretches of road more efficiently than a team of Hooverville residents.

Go to the grocery stores, automated check out.

Go to the gas station, pump your own.

Call for technical assistance, mostly automated.

Pay your bills, all online.

Manufacturing, all in China.

What do you want people to do to bring home the bacon, exactly?


Ad what is the common denominator in all the above? Technology. We need engineers, technicians, and scientists to maintain our lead in technology. That's how we will bring home the bacon.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by korathin
 


I'm male and I'm an educator. Feminist agenda indeed.

The reason the shovel ready program was useless is because everything is built already. They don't need slave labor, they need highly precise, well-educated professionals who can accurately repair our infrastructure. No more houses need to be built, they need to be occupied.
edit on 3-7-2011 by Sphota because: Removing the rude part


Yes we have a lot of infrastructure, but what was built is FALLING APART! And most interstate/highways are already at capacity and need to be expanded upon here and there. Right, then explain why the greenies are using prison labor in New York?

Most of the houses built are junk, garbage. Cheap wood and even cheaper drywall.
standyourground.com...
enlightenedwomen.org...
thepost.ohiou.edu...
www.aei.org...
www.enterstageright.com...

---
www.greenchipstocks.com...
www.nytimes.com...

Read in-between the lines. The states are gearing up to use prison labor en mass. Meaning they will be crafting as many law's as possible to ensure they have enough slaves.
edit on 3-7-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Sphota
 




Plus, it's hard to need a lot of jobs to build a road these days with those behemoths that pave stretches of road more efficiently than a team of Hooverville residents.

Go to the grocery stores, automated check out.

Go to the gas station, pump your own.

Call for technical assistance, mostly automated.

Pay your bills, all online.

Manufacturing, all in China.

What do you want people to do to bring home the bacon, exactly?


Ad what is the common denominator in all the above? Technology. We need engineers, technicians, and scientists to maintain our lead in technology. That's how we will bring home the bacon.


And what is Obama doing? Bringing in legals/illegals for basic construction working, bringing in legal immigrants for technicians, and using institutional discrimination to get "more girl's into science".



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
It boils down to; "We (the government) want more of your money."
They will use every excuse to take more. They will mix lies with the truth, obfuscate, blur reality. But in the end, they will want more. Because they want to grow and spend more.

Now the proponents will parrot what the government tells them. They will espouse more taxes so they can get more "free" stuff. Although, they themselves, will not want to pay more. They don't want to spend their money. Just other peoples money.

The rich, who hire and pay most people are the targets of the proponents and the governmment, because they have more money that can be taken for "free" stuff and useless government programs.
The kicker here is, is that if companies get taxed more, they will defray that additional expediture onto us, by raising the prices of what they provide.

So in the end, a tax on the rich will cost us more, causing many more to rely on government services which will enable the government to justify raising taxes even further.

QED
edit on 3-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Raising taxes will not work because corporations and rich people are human, they think just like you. If you had a million bucks and someone wanted to take 75% of it, would you bother trying to make another million? No, you would try to keep as much of it as you can. Imagine it's you, its not a million, it's just your salary, take more half of it out. If anyone says they would gladly give their money away is not a normal person, or they are lying.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




The rich, who hire and pay most people are the targets of the proponents and the governmment, because they have more money that can be taken for "free" stuff and useless government programs.
The kicker here is, is that if companies get taxed more, they will defray that additional expediture onto us, by raising the prices of what they provide.


Exactly. Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers do. So when people call for higher taxes on the rich, they are volunteering to pick up the tab.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
I always laugh when I hear people cry about taxes then complain about the bad economy. History shows that when taxes go up the economy goes up. When tax breaks are given the economy goes down. Clinton raised taxes just a little and had a surplus Bush came in office gave out the tax breaks and everything started to go down hill.


Taxes go up and the economy goes with it?
You have been smoking something funny haven't you?
Clinton had a surplus, yes. But, that surplus is not the Govt's money, it is tax money that belongs to the individual it was stolen.....er taken from.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The indoctrination of the Secular Socialists is never more apparent than when the class warfare arguments begin. The problem with raising taxes and giving the government more money was never so eloquently described as by PJ O'rourke.

"Giving government money and power is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys".

Do none of you indoctrinated socialist realize that the only way we will restore individual freedom is to starve the federal government? If they are given more money to balance the budget they will just find more ways to squander it or use it the buy more votes. Ultimately when you run out of productive people to pay for it the system collapses and we will have a dictator to evenly distribute misery. Your secular socilaist religion has so completely indoctrinated you that you ignore the history that whenever your system is implemented it ends in massive murder and the quote Hayek"Serfdom".



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Exactly. Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers do. So when people call for higher taxes on the rich, they are volunteering to pick up the tab.


GE got a $3.2 billion dollar tax refund.
Name the person(s) that refund was issued from the government to.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





I always laugh when I hear people cry about taxes then complain about the bad economy. History shows that when taxes go up the economy goes up. When tax breaks are given the economy goes down. Clinton raised taxes just a little and had a surplus Bush came in office gave out the tax breaks and everything started to go down hill.


Nice try but that is not a true cause and effect.

CLINTON ratified the World Trade Organization and Gene Sperling (Clinton's head of the National Economic Council) and William Daley (Clinton's Sec of Commerce) worked on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, these events caused millions of manufacturing jobs in U.S. to be permanently lost.


BANKING/ECONOMIC MESS
Next is the Banking fiasco. Clinton signed into law many of the "new improved" Banking Laws that lead to the Economic meltdown:


Consolidation of Mega Banks, AIG Bailout and Foreclosuregate: Quick list of Banking laws


After the Great Depression, several laws were put in place to prevent another depression. The 1933 and 1934 Security and Exchange laws, The McFadden Act of 1927, The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933. Also Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

Clinton's laws Negating above: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

More pro-banking Clinton laws:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991: Allowed big banks to gobble up smaller banks more easily.

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and RTC Completion Act - Housing and business loans to minorities.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - left CDSs unregulated and set up AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate.[/url] A Great article detailing the set up of the AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate.


The ramifications of all these changes showed up AFTER Clinton left office. Between Reagan's Leveraged buyout feeding frenzy of the 1980's and Clinton's shipping jobs overseas, US manufacturing (aka WEALTH CREATION) was permanently gutted.

The US went from 24% of the labor force working in manufacturing in 1970 to less than 9% now. With all the regulations, fines and fees and other government sponsored headaches you have to be a real masochist to try and start a small business in todays anti-business environment.

80% of new business fail. Contrary to most people's belief it is not because of financial reasons, only 10% close because of bankruptcy, for many it is because the hassle is just not worth it. When you put in so many hours filling out paperwork, that you are earning $1.00 an hour, if you are lucky, you might as well get a job flipping burgers at minimum wage -$7.25 in my state.

This anti-business attitude is really bad for the USA because about 52% of the jobs here in the USA are provided by small business.

Small businesses provided three-fourths of the new jobs between 1990 and 1995. Create more than 1/2 of the GDP (especially if you include farmers) Hire 40% of the high tech crowd. They are 97% of the exporters and produced 28.6% of the export value in 2004. Small business has 13 times as many patents per employee and those patents are twice as likely to be among the 1% most cited!



Reagan's contribution to the current mess:

The Looting of U.S. Corporations under Reagan...

The "deregulation" that occurred under Ronald Reagan resulted in the takeover and looting of many cash-rich U.S. corporations through leveraged buyouts involving junk bonds.....

This looting resulted in the loss of many jobs and in the significant reduction of pension benefits. Many corporate pension plans that were well-funded and invested in very safe securities were closed. The proceeds were used to set up new pension plans through the purchase of junk bonds. This scam was permitted by the passage of a law that allowed a pension plan to be closed and a new one established, provided that the new pension plan had the same "expected benefits" as the old plan. Pension actuaries were paid off to attest that this was the case. The sellers of the junk bonds made out like bandits. But when the junk bonds collapsed, many retirees saw their pension benefits reduced significantly--in some cases by more than two-thirds......



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Taxes go up and the economy goes with it?
You have been smoking something funny haven't you?
Clinton had a surplus, yes. But, that surplus is not the Govt's money, it is tax money that belongs to the individual it was stolen.....er taken from.



When you finish laughing can you please explain the following given the relative tax rates at the times given?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Anybody save the unintelligent and blind people who support republican conservative anti-human policies, agree with Obama on this issue. The question is will Obama hold to what he claims here to believe. He has been too weak willed and wimp-like towards the anti-human republicans and folds like a cheap camera so much that one has to question his sincerity.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Corporation A receives government subsidies. Then, corporation A gets refunded all of their income tax by the IRS.

Little Billy makes $2,000,000 a year. His gardener, Little Mike, only makes $20,000 a year. Little Mike pays more in taxes than Little Billy.

Little Charles is receiving health & welfare and has a low income job. He pays no taxes what so ever, but proudly brags to his friends about his new 3D LED-LCD HDTV, his expensive smart phone, and the car he just had pimped out.

Oh America, you so silly.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I don't know the relative tax rates, but the chart depicts excellent growth of wealth after the genius of economics Jimmy Carter was replaced in 1980. So limiting the scope to Reagan and Clinton it appears that both acheived real growth. It will be worthwhile to point out both enjoyed oil prices of less than $20/bbl for most of their tenures. Clinton also benefitted from the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 as well as the .com fraud that resulted in large amounts of capital gains taxes as the stock swapping was rampant until the bubble burst.

Now observing the 2000's we see the beginning of higher oil prices in 2003, perpetual war after 9/11 in which money is squandered.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




Your graph does not show that by raising taxes created a better economy. it shows what has happened for a long time now. As the economy grows, the Govt sinks it's teeth in more and sucks more money from the tax payer.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Statistics can be distorted to support claims, as these are. One has to look at what the trends of the economy is over a period of time to honestly relate them to specific policies.

The fact of the matter is that in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s when taxes for the rich were there highest the Americana economy flourished.

When Reagan cut the tax rates for the rich, the deficit ballooned, and then Reagan had to raise taxes 11 times in order to balance out his tax cuts for the rich.

The growth in those years then can be interpreted to his tax cuts and or tax raises, which one?

As for the tax increases of the rich under the second Bush, after that the economy tanked.

Under Bill Clinton, when he raised taxes on the rich, the economy blossomed so much so that he left office with a surplus in the budget that Bush destroyed with his tax cuts for the rich and other bad republican policies.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join