Joe Republican
- Thread starter Zimmerman
- Start date
Daydreaming
Active member
That said though, I'm voting to re-elect Obama next year [puts on flame suit]
bobby.brown
Member
ben. buffet supports obama because he likes to sleep at night knowing that the poor would feel bad about kidnapping his grandkids. In the interview, buffet basically said bernanke needs to STOP PRINTING NOW. and obama and bernanke are one in the same. so you ought to use your head and think about what really foes on inside buffets head. So ben to be honest im not trying to make a fight with you, but if you really think that people like warren buffet say what they truly believe, you are a fucking idiot.
mega facepalm
MitchPee
Active member
Reality is this: Assuming you mean the Bush tax cuts as the job growth act and the economic growth and tax relief act, these are absolutely contradicted in one of the links you post. You posted a letter from Peter Orszag in which he clearly states corporate taxes were the primary contributor to the 6.5% that you acknowledge. This has nothing to do with income taxes which is what the two primary Bush tax cuts affected.
Staying on this point of corporate tax contribution, it is nearly impossible to nail down all of the scenarios at work. A few things that may have been the cause of this (I don't have enough research to definitively say anything) are a spur of foreign investment from China and the like, temporary inflations and bubbles based on short-term boosts of income aka what happens when you send everybody in the country a check, corporate outsourcing, underlying toxic investments and the list goes on. Also if you look at this, it is all BEFORE taxes meaning the profit came from an outside source albeit domestic investment, foreign investment, or any other type of investment imaginable. I am willing to bet the tax revenues you speak of were much more due to sales tax collections and that on corporate profit than income tax. This would be a short-term result only.
Now, yes the top 5% paying income tax may have paid more in that one tiny aspect of their income. However, do you seriously think income from work is the primary source of capital for these people? It's extremely obvious the disparity between wages of the US has grown exponentially among top earners and even more so against white vs hispanic/black.
Also this is from your own letter that you posted which contradicts almost all that you have said
"Two caveats to this analysis should be noted. First, analyzing revenues as a share
of GDP does not illuminate the underlying causes of GDP growth itself, including
the possible influence on GDP from tax policy. Second, the detailed data required
for more systematic analysis of revenue trends are not yet available. For example,
detailed data based on tax returns provide the best basis for tracing sources of
revenue trends, but those data are typically not available until about two years
after collections occur. In addition, revisions to NIPA data can profoundly affect
the interpretation of revenue trends"
So the conclusion I come to is that anytime you dramatically cut taxes or dramatically increase government spending, you have a SHORT TERM increase in almost anything you desire. However, we saw the long-term implications of both sides of the story. The Bush tax cuts helped (not fully) cause one of the most speculative driven investment bubbles we have seen.
Staying on this point of corporate tax contribution, it is nearly impossible to nail down all of the scenarios at work. A few things that may have been the cause of this (I don't have enough research to definitively say anything) are a spur of foreign investment from China and the like, temporary inflations and bubbles based on short-term boosts of income aka what happens when you send everybody in the country a check, corporate outsourcing, underlying toxic investments and the list goes on. Also if you look at this, it is all BEFORE taxes meaning the profit came from an outside source albeit domestic investment, foreign investment, or any other type of investment imaginable. I am willing to bet the tax revenues you speak of were much more due to sales tax collections and that on corporate profit than income tax. This would be a short-term result only.
Now, yes the top 5% paying income tax may have paid more in that one tiny aspect of their income. However, do you seriously think income from work is the primary source of capital for these people? It's extremely obvious the disparity between wages of the US has grown exponentially among top earners and even more so against white vs hispanic/black.
Also this is from your own letter that you posted which contradicts almost all that you have said
"Two caveats to this analysis should be noted. First, analyzing revenues as a share
of GDP does not illuminate the underlying causes of GDP growth itself, including
the possible influence on GDP from tax policy. Second, the detailed data required
for more systematic analysis of revenue trends are not yet available. For example,
detailed data based on tax returns provide the best basis for tracing sources of
revenue trends, but those data are typically not available until about two years
after collections occur. In addition, revisions to NIPA data can profoundly affect
the interpretation of revenue trends"
So the conclusion I come to is that anytime you dramatically cut taxes or dramatically increase government spending, you have a SHORT TERM increase in almost anything you desire. However, we saw the long-term implications of both sides of the story. The Bush tax cuts helped (not fully) cause one of the most speculative driven investment bubbles we have seen.
Daydreaming
Active member
I saw this in the photo stream and lol'd
This thread is now about tandem bicycles
MitchPee
Active member
The percent of income tax paid is probably explainable by the drastic increase in wages at the top 1%. This was a period of HUGE bonuses and raises of CEO's and any beneficiaries of the correlating rise in corporate profits. NOT tax cuts.
You tried saying the Bush and Reagan tax cuts contributed vastly to government income. The Bush tax cuts were an income level, the increase was mostly corporate profit. That is what my whole post was about.
You tried saying the Bush and Reagan tax cuts contributed vastly to government income. The Bush tax cuts were an income level, the increase was mostly corporate profit. That is what my whole post was about.
Daydreaming
Active member
Daydreaming
Active member
Daydreaming
Active member
bummer, i had more of those "can't tell" photos too :|
Daydreaming
Active member
way2backseat
New member
that is about half as much fail needed
Nope.
I frankly couldn't give a fuck.
I frankly couldn't give a fuck.
Actually you should read it as, Mitchpee said everything I'd have said anyways, and I dont really care to respond to the shit you spew.
And by that measure. No, I could not give a fuck. lol.
And by that measure. No, I could not give a fuck. lol.
chuck_testa
Active member
This thread is a good example of why nothings getting passed. Were all arguing about stupid shit and blaming the president. Its congress to blame. Both republicans and democrats are pissed of at eachother and are not willing to compromise. Sorry if this is confusing. Im on mobile.
Fuck that. It's not congress OR the president.
I BLAME JUDGE ROBERTS!!!!!!
I BLAME JUDGE ROBERTS!!!!!!
wasatch_rat
Active member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
For those too lazy to read the whole thing, these are 5 MYTHS about the bush tax cuts
1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.
2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.
3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.
4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.
not the main cause, only 25% no big deal.
5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.
woozy, you and other republicans are lying to yourselves if you think we can continue without increasing revenue by increasing taxes. i personally do think that more people should pay a federal income tax. However if the poorer start getting taxed more, the rich sure as fuck better be paying more too.
something to consider, "The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020."
if we're going to enjoy any of the benefits that our parents and grandparents did, we need to decrease irresponsible spending AND increase revenue
For those too lazy to read the whole thing, these are 5 MYTHS about the bush tax cuts
1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.
2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.
3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.
4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.
not the main cause, only 25% no big deal.
5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.
woozy, you and other republicans are lying to yourselves if you think we can continue without increasing revenue by increasing taxes. i personally do think that more people should pay a federal income tax. However if the poorer start getting taxed more, the rich sure as fuck better be paying more too.
something to consider, "The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020."
if we're going to enjoy any of the benefits that our parents and grandparents did, we need to decrease irresponsible spending AND increase revenue
wasatch_rat
Active member
are you fucking kidding me? when did i say that we should only raise taxes, and not cut spending? never. when did i say that we should only tax the rich? never, i said that we need to up the income tax for a lot of people including the rich who got a break under bush in 2001 and 2003.
and obama's plan wouldn't eliminate all the bush tax cuts, just the ones on individuals making more than 200,000 and families making 250,000 like you said. so yea, i do think that the extra 87 billion dollars a year would be an easy (albeit small) step towards lowing the deficit.
the loss in tax revenue from ALL of the bush tax cuts (not just those making 200,000$ or families making 250,000$) are what account for a big chunk (25%) of our deficit, and we need to be looking into all of them not just those on the rich.
there is no doubt that we will have to have some serious social security reform among other things to reduce our debt. i'm not saying we won't have to reduce spending, absolutely nobody, not even the democrats are saying that. but the government NEEDS more revenue, period.
i'm all for decreasing government spending, in several different areas, but you and the rest of the right wing need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that we need to increase revenue.
and obama's plan wouldn't eliminate all the bush tax cuts, just the ones on individuals making more than 200,000 and families making 250,000 like you said. so yea, i do think that the extra 87 billion dollars a year would be an easy (albeit small) step towards lowing the deficit.
the loss in tax revenue from ALL of the bush tax cuts (not just those making 200,000$ or families making 250,000$) are what account for a big chunk (25%) of our deficit, and we need to be looking into all of them not just those on the rich.
there is no doubt that we will have to have some serious social security reform among other things to reduce our debt. i'm not saying we won't have to reduce spending, absolutely nobody, not even the democrats are saying that. but the government NEEDS more revenue, period.
i'm all for decreasing government spending, in several different areas, but you and the rest of the right wing need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that we need to increase revenue.
geteducated
Active member
me too bro, me too.
geteducated
Active member
now im really outta here
Mr.Huck
Active member
It is also a proven fact that people with money have the means and methods to shelter their income from taxes. Raise their taxes and they will spend more money on lawyers and accountants to shelter more money from taxation. Ironically, this includes people like Jeffery Emelt and other left leaning wealthy individuals. They are fine with tax rates going up because they know how to beat the system. The ones who will bear the brunt of this are the people who are just wealthy enough to fall into the higher tax bracket but do not have the resources that the super wealthy have.
Decrease tax rates on the wealthy and the incentive to shelter revenue will decrease. The government will generate more tax revenue by receiving a smaller percentage on more taxable income.
Decrease tax rates on the wealthy and the incentive to shelter revenue will decrease. The government will generate more tax revenue by receiving a smaller percentage on more taxable income.
wasatch_rat
Active member
the article that i posted was awful, the one from the washington post that gets its facts straight from the government. woozy you make me so angry i could scream. yes, in some instances increased taxes can correlate to (but does not necessarily create) decreased revenues. i will admit that it can and does happen.
but the majority of the times when the government increases taxes, it gets more money, thats common mother-fucking sense. you really think that every time the government increases taxes on something or someone that they lose revenue?
idk about you, but i like the fact that the government gives money to the elderly and disabled to help them live when they cannot work. but oh well, i guess we'll cut that expense because nobody wants to give the government more money.
i'm done arguing with you. you make ridiculous claims and search far and wide for anything to back it up. the free market does not fix all problems, friend, you need look no further than the tens of millions who cannot afford health care.
but the majority of the times when the government increases taxes, it gets more money, thats common mother-fucking sense. you really think that every time the government increases taxes on something or someone that they lose revenue?
idk about you, but i like the fact that the government gives money to the elderly and disabled to help them live when they cannot work. but oh well, i guess we'll cut that expense because nobody wants to give the government more money.
i'm done arguing with you. you make ridiculous claims and search far and wide for anything to back it up. the free market does not fix all problems, friend, you need look no further than the tens of millions who cannot afford health care.
dilla_says_go
Active member
how about you shut your fucking mouth, you rich bitch.
everybody needs to pay taxes. if you earn more, you should pay more. why? because you live in the one country (outside of fucking abu dhabi) where people can get rich as fuck and drive around in maybachs and yachts and shit.
freedom isn't free.
greed is still a sin.
everybody needs to pay taxes. if you earn more, you should pay more. why? because you live in the one country (outside of fucking abu dhabi) where people can get rich as fuck and drive around in maybachs and yachts and shit.
freedom isn't free.
greed is still a sin.
Facepalm. You basically just said that the president has nothing to do with anything.
Then again it really doesn't matter which side get's elected these days. Same as it ever was'd
Then again it really doesn't matter which side get's elected these days. Same as it ever was'd
chuck_testa
Active member
well I was in my phone so i came out confusing. It was ment to be like it isn't all the presidents fault. congress is also to blame. and to what you say I agree.
MitchPee
Active member
If by fail you mean point out a hypocrisy in everything you just said because you were trying to compare tax revenue from corporate profits to income based policies, then yes I did "fail". I addressed the reason(s) for this corporate profit and you told me you agreed, then somehow spat off on a pointless tangent with no foundation.
You also responded to large paragraphs and abstract comments with phrases like "utter bullshit". You should spend less time googling articles and youtube videos that pertain to your particular bias and spend more time thinking about multiple sides of an economic spectrum. Anyone can sit there and beat say's law and homo economicus into the ground.
You also responded to large paragraphs and abstract comments with phrases like "utter bullshit". You should spend less time googling articles and youtube videos that pertain to your particular bias and spend more time thinking about multiple sides of an economic spectrum. Anyone can sit there and beat say's law and homo economicus into the ground.
