any opinions?
-
The Slut Boat soon will be making another run
The Slut Boat promises something for everyone -
Letting people keep their own money is never a good idea.
-
Keep in mind - everyone who is making $250,000 per year or less gets a substantial tax break.The Slut Boat soon will be making another run
The Slut Boat promises something for everyoneComment
-
Barry needs that money to pay for another stimulus
By extending them, Business's will know the money they have can be invested without going to pay for another stimulus package. Then they will feel better about hiring, expanding and investingCarbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about thatComment
-
It's terrible timing for raising taxes, they should wait at least a year till the economy recovers...
Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip ManagerComment
-
The federal government is a huge money sink. The less money they get........ the less damage they can do. Starve the beast.бабки, шлюхи, силаComment
-
-
Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context
More needs to be done to put the numbers involved in extending the Bush tax cuts in context, so consider this: There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.
The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion. The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.
Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...on_extens.htmlThe Slut Boat soon will be making another run
The Slut Boat promises something for everyoneComment
-
-
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about thatComment
-
Tax cuts "cost" nothing.
There is an idiot segment of the population that believes it, howeverI'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Of course they should expire. They're just going back to what was being paid under the Clinton era, and the economy was booming then. So this notion that it's going to cripple the recovery effort is ridiculous, if not simply wrong.
For example, ExxonMobil was doing just fine during Clinton, and will continue to do just fine if the tax cuts expire. Does anyone really believe that is someone like ExxonMobil gets to keep their $15 billion/year tax cut, it's going to help rejuvenate the American economy, or something? If anything, that money will go to things like greasing the palms of Russian politicians, with hopes of obtaining exploration & drilling rights in more parts of Siberia.
Fuck guys like Exxon, take the money from them, and give it back to small entrepreneurs. You know, the small businesses who are going to come up with the next Google, or an awesome solar panel, or a new bio-fuel, or whatever. They're going to advance the US economy far more than guys like Exxon will.xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!Comment
-
I think they should keep the tax cuts, after all, they have already done such wonderful things for our economy.
ICQ# 200-385-093Comment
-
Comment
-
and when the jobs dont come back? because they arent coming back.Comment
-
Is that based off the theory that lower personal taxes sparks more spending, investing, thus they collect more in taxes? Because that isn't what has been happening with the current tax cuts, didn't happen in the 80's either when we had the lowest personal tax rate in modern history.
When our Country collects $2.7 trillion a year in all taxes, and we are $13 trillion in debt, and before everyone bitched about big gov (and before wars, Katrina, oil spills, etc) it cost us $800b a year to run this bucket.
I don't care who you are or what math class you took... you can lower the rate to the floor, make it a flat tax, do whatever - lower isn't going to spark $10 trillion in "taxed" spending when they only collect $2.7 trillion at the rate bitched at now. If you cut the rate in half, and everyone spend twice as much, we aren't collecting anything extra to pay off crap.
A reduction in Gov/spending would stop the growth from happening, it does nothing for the damage already done.Last edited by TheDoc; 11-05-2010, 08:51 PM.
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
-
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
tax or no tax, in the end, we all pay for everything... nothing is free (except porn)
the real question is, do we want the government as middleman and taking or money and giving it to institution A or should we just give the money to institution A because they provide something valuable that we desire
also regarding taxes, consider that the government collects part of our income and takes this to pay soldiers salaries... which in turn are taxed by the government... compare it to a rake in poker... and if there is only a fixed amount of money at the table, the dealer will eventually have raked it all
the house always wins...We the People loseComment
-
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
No one replies to my logic. I see what you did there.
ICQ# 200-385-093Comment
-
-
-
Wow, I have neg rep for trolling idiots in a political thread. LMAO
ICQ# 200-385-093Comment
-
Don't mind 12clicks, he thinks that most of it's existence means the 85 years the US went without income taxes, that is, the least prosperous part of the United State's history.
85 years isn't most of its existence - 12clicks just spouting things again with no real actual knowledge of ANYTHING. LOL LOL
For him the time when there was no taxes is the greatest time because it was a time when he would have been able to practice racism to the full extent he wishes he could.
Most people refer to them as the dark ages of the United States when you weren't a super power but I guess to 12clicks the US 'got along just fine.'
Don't make things up 12clicks.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
-
Incorrect on what? Great argument as usual.
I never said a Country taxed itself out of a recession. But a Country has taxed the people to pay for its debts before, including ours.
I never said gov spending grow's the eco. You seem to be mistaken, I actually said it would stop the growth in the Gov from happening but wouldn't pay off our debts.
Who said taxes created jobs? At that... we've had much higher taxes before with much lower unemployment numbers, so your theory is just off - and I still didn't say shit about that. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
We've had way higher taxes before and they collected a much higher percentage of the money. And they didn't collect less with the "higher" rates under Clinton - which is what we are returning to.
I think you may want to read up on some history. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm
Oh look, the governments own website calls you a liar.
Now run along kid, once again you type about that which you know nothingI'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
I'm always amazed at some people's ability to feed themselves with such limited intelligence.
""" The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases."""I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Maybe so, however you know nothing.
That displays a totally different point, direction and view point of what I said. If you're going to call someone a liar at least attempt to get the argument right before you make yourself look stupid.
No run along and pretend that you have any type of clue about anything as usual. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
Shut the fuck up and go away, silly liar.
HahahahaI'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
It must piss you of when you betters shut you down..
p.s. Regan's stupid as tax policy spiked our deficits larger than it had ever been in history... But hey, cutting taxes makes the rich spend so much more the deficits doesn't go up - no wait...
Listen idiot... spending may go up (for the top 1%), but if they don't collect enough money to pay the bills, it makes no difference.
Now get back to high school and learn some basic math.Last edited by TheDoc; 11-06-2010, 04:23 PM. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
"""Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes"""
There, that should help you're incredibly small mind.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
As a share of GDP, sure... first 4 years, sure and previous increases too? Maybe, of course that many years probably like 50 things factor in..... anyway what happened the 4 years after that? Well now, we know that story."""Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes"""
There, that should help you're incredibly small mind.
Speaking of small minds... you haven't made a valid argument yet.Last edited by TheDoc; 11-06-2010, 04:27 PM. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
Comment