| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2008 12:29:47 AM · #126 |
My husband got the same email.
Snopes says the same thing spazmo does. :) |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 02:09:13 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, I'm not sure where I got off on capital gains taxes. Well, unfortunately the story isn't much better for corporate tax. During the 1990s, non-financial corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s. This decline reflects reductions in the statutory tax rate as well as corporations̢۪ expanded use of deductions and other tax benefits. The unemployment rate, of course, does not continue to decline from the 50's to the 90s. You can see from this bar graph that it waxes and wanes in cycles which have little to do with corporate tax rates.
I know "trickle down" economics is preached by lots and lots of conservatives. I don't really see any evidence it actually works. It's more likely a smokescreen to give a more palatable taste to the main idea of "I want to pay less tax". |
Who doesn't want to pay less tax. I can make better decisions than the government can with MY money. The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
Don't tell me that a tax cut shouldn't happen because 'corporations' don't need the money. If the government doesn't need the extra revenue then leave it where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 08:39:30 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who doesn't want to pay less tax. I can make better decisions than the government can with MY money. The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
|
I would gladly pay more in taxes. I want my sewers working. I want clean water. I want free education. I want roads to drive on, and I prefer them to be safe. I like the fact that public hospitals exist. I'm glad there are homeless shelters, food programs, and free clinics. I enjoy the fact that I can travel pretty safely within this country. I like know there are police and firefighters willing to put their life on the line. I like that there exists an environmental protection agency that oversees corporations who won't police themselves. I like that so much of the land in this country is kept as national parks that I can go visit and that we have national museums like the Smithsonian. I like knowing that there is a government group that does research into diseases and oversees drugs coming onto the market (remember thalidomide?). I like that we have our citizens in other countries making sure I can stay safe here. I like having a judicial system in place so that I might retain some rights. I like this country.
We pay less personal tax than Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, Canada, etc.
You might be able to "make better decisions with your money" than the government, but I'll bet none of it would include any of the above things we all take for granted. Spend some time in a place with no drinking water, no roads, scarce food, scant medical services, and no well defined justice system and let me know how it turns out. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 08:59:51 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who doesn't want to pay less tax. I can make better decisions than the government can with MY money. The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
|
I would gladly pay more in taxes. I want my sewers working. I want clean water. I want free education. I want roads to drive on, and I prefer them to be safe. I like the fact that public hospitals exist. I'm glad there are homeless shelters, food programs, and free clinics. I enjoy the fact that I can travel pretty safely within this country. I like know there are police and firefighters willing to put their life on the line. I like that there exists an environmental protection agency that oversees corporations who won't police themselves. I like that so much of the land in this country is kept as national parks that I can go visit and that we have national museums like the Smithsonian. I like knowing that there is a government group that does research into diseases and oversees drugs coming onto the market (remember thalidomide?). I like that we have our citizens in other countries making sure I can stay safe here. I like having a judicial system in place so that I might retain some rights. I like this country.
We pay less personal tax than Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, Canada, etc.
You might be able to "make better decisions with your money" than the government, but I'll bet none of it would include any of the above things we all take for granted. Spend some time in a place with no drinking water, no roads, scarce food, scant medical services, and no well defined justice system and let me know how it turns out. |
I think this states the government responsibility which would include what you've just said.
The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
What is enough? Are we there? Is the government spending our money wisely and efficiently or are they just throwing more money at problems hoping they will fix themselves? I think it's more of the latter. If the efficiencies were there the government could get by on even less in some instances hence freeing up capital for areas that need it more.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 09:18:51 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Who doesn't want to pay less tax. I can make better decisions than the government can with MY money. The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
|
I would gladly pay more in taxes. I want my sewers working. I want clean water. I want free education. I want roads to drive on, and I prefer them to be safe. I like the fact that public hospitals exist. I'm glad there are homeless shelters, food programs, and free clinics. I enjoy the fact that I can travel pretty safely within this country. I like know there are police and firefighters willing to put their life on the line. I like that there exists an environmental protection agency that oversees corporations who won't police themselves. I like that so much of the land in this country is kept as national parks that I can go visit and that we have national museums like the Smithsonian. I like knowing that there is a government group that does research into diseases and oversees drugs coming onto the market (remember thalidomide?). I like that we have our citizens in other countries making sure I can stay safe here. I like having a judicial system in place so that I might retain some rights. I like this country.
We pay less personal tax than Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, Canada, etc.
You might be able to "make better decisions with your money" than the government, but I'll bet none of it would include any of the above things we all take for granted. Spend some time in a place with no drinking water, no roads, scarce food, scant medical services, and no well defined justice system and let me know how it turns out. |
I think this states the government responsibility which would include what you've just said.
The government needs to collect enough tax to support the programs needed to run the country with enough to do what individuals should be doing, plan for bad times. Period.
What is enough? Are we there? Is the government spending our money wisely and efficiently or are they just throwing more money at problems hoping they will fix themselves? I think it's more of the latter. If the efficiencies were there the government could get by on even less in some instances hence freeing up capital for areas that need it more. |
I'd gladly pay more tax if the government programs cared for the people and not just about war and bailing out the mega-rich when they screw up. |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 10:27:53 AM · #131 |
Opinion on what happened
The bailout
Biased but interesting
Who better?
Articles found around the net. From the 20 or so I have read today, the root cause seems to be deregulation and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And, well, greed.
Interesting articles on the deficit and how it grew...
Article written in 2004 with regard to the deficit.
Deficit, trickle down economics - interesting read, especially second section
|
|
|
|
09/27/2008 10:43:57 AM · #132 |
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
|
|
|
09/27/2008 11:47:01 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
All those suddenly unemployed stockbrokers might overwhelm the Food Stamp program? |
|
|
|
09/28/2008 10:11:48 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2008 01:52:33 PM · #135 |
|
|
|
09/28/2008 02:37:44 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world? |
Trading was stopped in the wake of 9/11, what were the consequences then?
It started again and other exchanges continued to operate. |
|
|
|
09/28/2008 03:22:33 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world? |
Trading was stopped in the wake of 9/11, what were the consequences then?
It started again and other exchanges continued to operate. |
I would say the reasons are different. Stopping Wall Street during financial difficulty I think would send the wrong message to the world.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2008 04:03:50 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world? |
Trading was stopped in the wake of 9/11, what were the consequences then?
It started again and other exchanges continued to operate. |
I would say the reasons are different. Stopping Wall Street during financial difficulty I think would send the wrong message to the world. |
As opposed to the message sent by handing over a $700 Billion to the people who have screwed up the market in the first place without a thought. |
|
|
|
09/28/2008 11:39:21 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world? |
Trading was stopped in the wake of 9/11, what were the consequences then?
It started again and other exchanges continued to operate. |
I would say the reasons are different. Stopping Wall Street during financial difficulty I think would send the wrong message to the world. |
As opposed to the message sent by handing over a $700 Billion to the people who have screwed up the market in the first place without a thought. |
When the bail out was first announced, markets actually bounced back. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2008 09:56:59 AM · #140 |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 10:03:48 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Jammur:
Act in haste , repent in leisure.....
Perhaps one of the resident sages can explain why the administration is so desperate to get this program enacted without taking time to fully consider all the ramifications?
What harm would come from suspending trading on Wall Street until a sound economic program is resolved? |
What message do you think that would send to the financial markets around the world? |
Trading was stopped in the wake of 9/11, what were the consequences then?
It started again and other exchanges continued to operate. |
I would say the reasons are different. Stopping Wall Street during financial difficulty I think would send the wrong message to the world. |
As opposed to the message sent by handing over a $700 Billion to the people who have screwed up the market in the first place without a thought. |
When the bail out was first announced, markets actually bounced back. Go figure. |
Sure, in anticipation of a big handout.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2008 10:24:18 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by citymars:
... and lest we forget McCain's role... |
Oh yeah, right...I'll take that "Opinion" in high regards. The LA Times of California. I wonder what camp she's in? |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 10:32:34 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by citymars:
... and lest we forget McCain's role... |
Oh yeah, right...I'll take that "Opinion" in high regards. The LA Times of California. I wonder what camp she's in? |
I'm sorry, have you not heard of The Keating Five?
PS: "I'm always in favor of less regulation," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March.
Message edited by author 2008-09-29 10:34:48. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 10:51:24 AM · #144 |
When will we realize that the premise at which this whole system is built is fundamentally wrong? I'm listening our executive and legislative branch today, and all I'm hearing is how the whole life will stop because people can't get loans.
Loans to buy food, loans to pay for school, loans to pay salaries, loans to....
Does anyone have any money any more? What was the last thing you bought for cash? Do you really need to take a loan to function? If yes, then it is wrong. What's wrong is the premise that there is infinite growth ahead, and that it is OK to loan some money, we'll get some later and repay what we owe. While true in select few cases, it is basically provable incorrect as a general rule. This is why we are here where we are today. It is time to close (or reduce to a trickle) pipes that leak money. Get real people, pumping money to banks in order to continue with the lie of living carelessly is just postponing the problem. It will reappear once the time comes for those new credit lines to get repayed. As always, some people will repay those on time, and those in trouble today will continue to be in trouble later.
Stop the insanity, and deal with the crisis. Last time the US was in a similar state, it took WWII and the better portion of the world to recede into poverty to push US ahead. The Iraq stunt did not work for some reason. I'm not sure why. Maybe too localized? |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 11:02:08 AM · #145 |
You make an interesting point.
The fact is, the average person's dollar is worth much less today - which naturally makes it less likely to have enough cash to buy anything (like a car or house. So in a way, inflation and crummy dollar probably help banks in the end because the average person needs a loan for everything.
Originally posted by srdanz:
Loans to buy food, loans to pay for school, loans to pay salaries, loans to....
|
|
|
|
|
09/29/2008 02:13:51 PM · #146 |
| OK, bailout is rejected. House voted against it. Let's see how the market handles it. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 02:30:33 PM · #147 |
I'm being optimistic and assuming that they want to take their time with this. It's possible the our representatives are still truly fighting for the guy on main street.
Edit to add: Maybe our government wants a better price - so they'll let the market plummet until the prices become so cheap the bailout will be â€Â¦ let say 250K? ;P
Message edited by author 2008-09-29 14:37:41. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 02:31:07 PM · #148 |
Okay, so the Republicans aren't voting for it because Pelosi blamed the problem on Bush? First off, that was a pretty stuipd comment on her part (how surprising), but do they really think that it's a good reason to shoot it down? |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 03:00:23 PM · #149 |
| I think the Republicans who are against it are opposed to socialism for the rich, the Democrats because it would be paid for by taxes on the poor(er) ... |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 03:05:33 PM · #150 |
| Anybody wants to go and buy some stock today? |
|
