HomeI am sorry for not posting a cite on the graph. This article addresses much of my concern.
http://snohomishobserver.com/2012/05/21/taxes-2/
http://snohomishobserver.com/2012/05/21/taxes-2/
Pensacola Discussion Forum
This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.
Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?
+3
gatorfan
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL
7 posters
Go to page : 
1, 2, 3
Message [Page 2 of 3]
27 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 3:02 pm
2seaoat
It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts,
Yes, and that fact establishes nothing. The science of economics is not static. It is dynamic. The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt. The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.
Yes, and that fact establishes nothing. The science of economics is not static. It is dynamic. The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt. The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.
28 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 3:16 pm
boards of FL
colaguy wrote:2seaoat wrote:
In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP. The above link shows how corporation tax revenue has plummeted since the lowering of corporate rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg
We simply need to reclaim the lost corporate taxes and attack debt while looking to lower middle class tax rates while increasing top rates significantly. Our demand economy has been crippled by reaganomics and its flawed theories, and clearly you can see how the tax policy has attacked the middle class and led to income disparity.
The OMB statistics differ from your (uncited) chart. It indicates corporate tax receipts have varied as a % over the years, but have been increasing since 2009. It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts, and that about half of all income earners pay no federal taxes. Why you distort the facts and want the wealthy to pay more is baffling. However, I agree with you about attacking the Debt. Unfortunately that has yet to occur.
Corporate tax receipts by year:
2006 - 353,915
2007 - 370,243
2008 - 304,346
2009 - 138,229
2010 - 191,437
2011 - 181,085
2012 - 242,289
2013 - 273,506
Corporate profits:
Wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes because they control the most wealth and command the most income. Common sense. Almost half of the population pays nothing in federal income taxes because there is virtually nothing to take from them. This is the case because we have witnessed a trend of gross wealth and income distribution that has been in place since the 80s. Clearly, 2seaot is merely saying that there is room for the government to 1) recognize this and then 2) operate in way that that aims to reduce our debt while also being conscientious of this gross wealth distribution.
_________________
I approve this message.
29 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 3:22 pm
boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
_________________
I approve this message.
30 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 3:22 pm
Guest
Guest
2seaoat wrote: It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts,
Yes, and that fact establishes nothing. The science of economics is not static. It is dynamic. The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt. The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.
That's a lot of flowery speech, but it sounds as if you are still in favor of increasing federal income taxes on the wealthy. I wonder what the effect would be. I'm not in that income category, but I would be hard-pressed to take a tax increase lying down. I'd be searching high and low to avoid paying any more than I already am. That includes packing up and moving. So, the end result might be a reduction in tax revenue because many of the wealthy chose to take their income producing selves elsewhere. That used to be a drastic step to take - but year by year it sounds less and less unpatriotic to do so. I'm not placing the blame for this on the current occupant of the WH, but he certainly has not instilled pride, unity, and love of country in his tenure.
31 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 3:39 pm
2seaoat
but it sounds as if you are still in favor of increasing federal income taxes on the wealthy.
Absolutely. When I was healthy and working I was in the top 3% of income in the nation. I saw from 1982 my tax burden keep getting less and less. I was happy, but I was a gung ho Republican who supported Ronald Reagan and believed that trickle down would work and the pie would get bigger and everybody would share in that pie.
I came to the stunning realization in 2007 that Reaganomics was horrible for America and I had supported bad policy for America. I used to know hundreds of other small business owners who thrived prior to Reaganomics. Main street was full of these business models but in the last thirty years main street has shut down, and big box has taken over. We had five healthy local banks when I was a kid, and now they are all but one gone with Chase, BOA, and other national banks filling the gap. I see middle class people who were contributors now rendered to poverty because of flawed and confiscatory tax and fiscal policy. I remain a Republican, but good efficient government may work better if we do not create debt. Dropping tax rates and fighting wars is not the type of fiscal policy you would see at your local school board or town council, but the special interests do not profit at the local level, and they cannot steal this nation's wealth, yet with a sweep of the pen trillions of dollars of American wealth has been stolen. Return tax rates to the mid 1980s on individual rates and return corporate tax rates to 1970 rates.
Absolutely. When I was healthy and working I was in the top 3% of income in the nation. I saw from 1982 my tax burden keep getting less and less. I was happy, but I was a gung ho Republican who supported Ronald Reagan and believed that trickle down would work and the pie would get bigger and everybody would share in that pie.
I came to the stunning realization in 2007 that Reaganomics was horrible for America and I had supported bad policy for America. I used to know hundreds of other small business owners who thrived prior to Reaganomics. Main street was full of these business models but in the last thirty years main street has shut down, and big box has taken over. We had five healthy local banks when I was a kid, and now they are all but one gone with Chase, BOA, and other national banks filling the gap. I see middle class people who were contributors now rendered to poverty because of flawed and confiscatory tax and fiscal policy. I remain a Republican, but good efficient government may work better if we do not create debt. Dropping tax rates and fighting wars is not the type of fiscal policy you would see at your local school board or town council, but the special interests do not profit at the local level, and they cannot steal this nation's wealth, yet with a sweep of the pen trillions of dollars of American wealth has been stolen. Return tax rates to the mid 1980s on individual rates and return corporate tax rates to 1970 rates.
32 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 4:37 pm
Guest
Guest
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
33 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 4:40 pm
boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
_________________
I approve this message.
34 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 4:59 pm
Guest
Guest
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
I'm aware that the budget was made during the last bush year... though I'm not sure what significance you think that holds. It's not like bush controlled the purse strings that year... or implemented an ENORMOUS wasteful clusterfuck stimulus.
But blame bush... I don't give a damn about your self-delusions.
How has that earned obama the bs praise of deficit busting fiscal conservative in your mind?
It's a ridiculous assertion.
35 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 5:48 pm
KarlRove
by 2seaoat Today at 1:33 pm
Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant
Bill Clinton is dead cinch correct, and completely consistent with what Boards has been saying for the last three years. The President and every person remotely familiar with economics understands the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with the 1968 index adjusted for inflation has huge ramifications on median income. The blockade on minimum wage incremental increases is bad for American business and our GDP. 70% of our GDP is driven by demand and when we allow record profits to go untaxed and top brackets to get tax cuts we feed the income disparity and slow growth of the median income average. Boards has been dead cinch correct from the get go..........and I think some people are jealous of his intelligence and understanding of these issues.
-----
How many of your entry level workers
Did you pay
More than minimum wage
To?
I've asked this before ...
Bill Clinton: I know why US incomes are stagnant
Bill Clinton is dead cinch correct, and completely consistent with what Boards has been saying for the last three years. The President and every person remotely familiar with economics understands the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with the 1968 index adjusted for inflation has huge ramifications on median income. The blockade on minimum wage incremental increases is bad for American business and our GDP. 70% of our GDP is driven by demand and when we allow record profits to go untaxed and top brackets to get tax cuts we feed the income disparity and slow growth of the median income average. Boards has been dead cinch correct from the get go..........and I think some people are jealous of his intelligence and understanding of these issues.
-----
How many of your entry level workers
Did you pay
More than minimum wage
To?
I've asked this before ...
36 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 5:49 pm
boards of FL
PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
I'm aware that the budget was made during the last bush year... though I'm not sure what significance you think that holds. It's not like bush controlled the purse strings that year... or implemented an ENORMOUS wasteful clusterfuck stimulus.
But blame bush... I don't give a damn about your self-delusions.
How has that earned obama the bs praise of deficit busting fiscal conservative in your mind?
It's a ridiculous assertion.
Well, you seem to take issue with the fact that if we're discussing budgets, I begin with 2009. The reasoning there is because that is the budget that Obama inherited. It is also the economy that Obama inherited. If not for 2009, what year would you prefer I look at?
Beyond that, is this your only entry into the CPI discussion? A general misinterpretation of how government and budgets work?
_________________
I approve this message.
37 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 6:51 pm
2seaoat
I've asked this before ...
I consistently paid 30% more over the minimum wage. You could not get good people for minimum wage because nobody can support a family, and minimum wage as low as it is does not serve as an incentive for employees.
I consistently paid 30% more over the minimum wage. You could not get good people for minimum wage because nobody can support a family, and minimum wage as low as it is does not serve as an incentive for employees.
38 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 7:11 pm
Markle
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
OBVIOUSLY you are not aware of it or you hope to bury the truth.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi never allowed the 2009 Bush Budget come up for a vote. That budget had a deficit of LESS than $500 BILLION and was sharply criticized by Democrats as being outrageous.
Semi-retired President Obama, as you know, signed the 2009 Budget in March of 2009.
39 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 7:16 pm
TEOTWAWKI
Markle has Boards on the ropes ...boards is staggered trying to shake it off, Markle is going in for the knock out, Boards is shaking his head backing away...."DING" saved by the bell....
40 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 7:31 pm
KarlRove
[quote="2seaoat"]I've asked this before ...
I consistently paid 30% more over the minimum wage. You could not get good people for minimum wage because nobody can support a family, and minimum wage as low as it is does not serve as an incentive for employees.[/quote
For a brand new worker, no skills? I CALL BS. Of course 30 over the current min wage is about $2.09 more an hour. Not much help.
I consistently paid 30% more over the minimum wage. You could not get good people for minimum wage because nobody can support a family, and minimum wage as low as it is does not serve as an incentive for employees.[/quote
For a brand new worker, no skills? I CALL BS. Of course 30 over the current min wage is about $2.09 more an hour. Not much help.
41 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:01 pm
Floridatexan
PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
I'm aware that the budget was made during the last bush year... though I'm not sure what significance you think that holds. It's not like bush controlled the purse strings that year... or implemented an ENORMOUS wasteful clusterfuck stimulus.
But blame bush... I don't give a damn about your self-delusions.
How has that earned obama the bs praise of deficit busting fiscal conservative in your mind?
It's a ridiculous assertion.
You don't appear to understand the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. The stimulus wasn't "enormous"; the bailout was. Bush set up the TARP (bailout) prior to leaving office. The fiscal budget for 2009 was already in place.
42 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:19 pm
Markle
[quote="boards of FL"]http://mam.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=461101&cust=mam&year=2014&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top
[...]
[quote]Consumer price inflation turned down in November on sharply lower gasoline prices plus dips in some core subcomponents. Overall consumer price inflation fell 0.3 percent after no change in October. The November number was below market expectations for a 0.1 percent dip.
[quote]
This, as you well know is a LIE. NOT surprising.
"Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?"
You even resort to using non-words in you lie.
Forecasts of massive inflation were and are predicated on the wrong assumption that this administration would actually QUIT printing worthless money at some point in time. It continues today.
Please explain how DEFLATION is a good thing.
[...]
[quote]Consumer price inflation turned down in November on sharply lower gasoline prices plus dips in some core subcomponents. Overall consumer price inflation fell 0.3 percent after no change in October. The November number was below market expectations for a 0.1 percent dip.
[quote]
This, as you well know is a LIE. NOT surprising.
"Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?"
You even resort to using non-words in you lie.
Forecasts of massive inflation were and are predicated on the wrong assumption that this administration would actually QUIT printing worthless money at some point in time. It continues today.
Please explain how DEFLATION is a good thing.
43 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:23 pm
Markle
Floridatexan wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
I'm aware that the budget was made during the last bush year... though I'm not sure what significance you think that holds. It's not like bush controlled the purse strings that year... or implemented an ENORMOUS wasteful clusterfuck stimulus.
But blame bush... I don't give a damn about your self-delusions.
How has that earned obama the bs praise of deficit busting fiscal conservative in your mind?
It's a ridiculous assertion.
You don't appear to understand the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. The stimulus wasn't "enormous"; the bailout was. Bush set up the TARP (bailout) prior to leaving office. The fiscal budget for 2009 was already in place.
You certainly do not understand the difference.
The TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus accomplished nothing.
The BAILOUT for banks was paid back, with interest.
There was NO 2009 budget in place since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to allow vote. Semi-retired President Obama signed a 2009 budget in March of 2009. They probably did not have that at your bible, the DailyKOS
44 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:26 pm
Guest
Guest
Floridatexan wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:boards of FL wrote:PkrBum wrote:Though you'll see bof and seagoat use the year 09 to applaud deficit reduction... you won't be allowed the same.
And PkrBum will not actually have anything of substance to offer here, though he will still chime in with a one-liner from time to time nevertheless.
PkrBum - Master of participation points
You do just that... you use the unusual year 09 to praise the amazing fiscal conservatism of the president
Ignoring that it was an aberration... or the fact that 2014 is still larger than any other bush year... dishonestly.
Do arguments like that achieve something in your own head? Because I assure you that they ring hollow to others.
HISTORICAL BUDGET DEFICITS:
Year...........Deficit
2013 680,276,000,000
2012 1,089,193,000,000
2011 1,296,791,000,000
2010 1,294,204,000,000
2009 1,415,724,000,000
2008 454,798,000,000
2007 161,527,000,000
2006 248,197,000,000
2005 318,746,000,000
2004 412,845,000,000
2003 377,139,000,000
2002 157,791,000,000
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but 2009 is a Bush budget.
I'm aware that the budget was made during the last bush year... though I'm not sure what significance you think that holds. It's not like bush controlled the purse strings that year... or implemented an ENORMOUS wasteful clusterfuck stimulus.
But blame bush... I don't give a damn about your self-delusions.
How has that earned obama the bs praise of deficit busting fiscal conservative in your mind?
It's a ridiculous assertion.
You don't appear to understand the difference between the bailout and the stimulus. The stimulus wasn't "enormous"; the bailout was. Bush set up the TARP (bailout) prior to leaving office. The fiscal budget for 2009 was already in place.
Wrong... the obama stimulus was larger and didn't recover any of the expense... except for a substantial gm loss.
You really do convince yourself of things from leftist propaganda... even though you had to have remembered them.
It's sad really.
45 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:34 pm
Markle
2seaoat wrote:I've asked this before ...
I consistently paid 30% more over the minimum wage. You could not get good people for minimum wage because nobody can support a family, and minimum wage as low as it is does not serve as an incentive for employees.
PLEASE share with us all the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS who rely solely on one minimum wage worker.
If you cannot, or refuse, it means you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are LYING...AGAIN.
Again...nothing but childish stirring of the pot.
46 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 8:53 pm
Markle
2seaoat wrote:
In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP. The above link shows how corporation tax revenue has plummeted since the lowering of corporate rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg
We simply need to reclaim the lost corporate taxes and attack debt while looking to lower middle class tax rates while increasing top rates significantly. Our demand economy has been crippled by reaganomics and its flawed theories, and clearly you can see how the tax policy has attacked the middle class and led to income disparity.
Who pays corporate taxes again?
As you know, our economy flourished for over a quarter of a century with Reaganomics. Why do you love the current malaise?
47 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 9:54 pm
Floridatexan
colaguy wrote:2seaoat wrote: It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts,
Yes, and that fact establishes nothing. The science of economics is not static. It is dynamic. The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt. The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.
That's a lot of flowery speech, but it sounds as if you are still in favor of increasing federal income taxes on the wealthy. I wonder what the effect would be. I'm not in that income category, but I would be hard-pressed to take a tax increase lying down. I'd be searching high and low to avoid paying any more than I already am. That includes packing up and moving. So, the end result might be a reduction in tax revenue because many of the wealthy chose to take their income producing selves elsewhere. That used to be a drastic step to take - but year by year it sounds less and less unpatriotic to do so. I'm not placing the blame for this on the current occupant of the WH, but he certainly has not instilled pride, unity, and love of country in his tenure.
The fallacy in your argument is that the wealthy are "job creators". Some people with wealth do indeed create jobs, but why bother to start a company that produces in the US when the cost of labor is so much less in the 3rd world. Labor + Materials = Capital
If you own the means of production, you can exploit labor, no matter what country you're doing business in. Do you think these people want to live in a 3rd world country? No, they just want to exploit the lower cost of labor...and sometimes materials. It's all about the bottom line. Corporations in the US used to be held to a standard of doing good for the country. That is no longer the case.
48 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 10:13 pm
Floridatexan
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/the-abject-failure-of-reaganomics/
49 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 10:19 pm
Markle
Floridatexan wrote:
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/the-abject-failure-of-reaganomics/
50 Re: Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong? 12/17/2014, 10:26 pm
Markle
Floridatexan wrote:colaguy wrote:2seaoat wrote: It is common knowledge that the wealthiest income earners pay the majority of the federal tax receipts,
Yes, and that fact establishes nothing. The science of economics is not static. It is dynamic. The lowering of the effective tax rate on the highest income brackets had very negative effects on the economy, job creation, median income, and growing uncontrollable national debt. The truth is that those at the top are paying LESS, not in the absolute, but relative to what they have paid when we had manageable debt.
That's a lot of flowery speech, but it sounds as if you are still in favor of increasing federal income taxes on the wealthy. I wonder what the effect would be. I'm not in that income category, but I would be hard-pressed to take a tax increase lying down. I'd be searching high and low to avoid paying any more than I already am. That includes packing up and moving. So, the end result might be a reduction in tax revenue because many of the wealthy chose to take their income producing selves elsewhere. That used to be a drastic step to take - but year by year it sounds less and less unpatriotic to do so. I'm not placing the blame for this on the current occupant of the WH, but he certainly has not instilled pride, unity, and love of country in his tenure.
The fallacy in your argument is that the wealthy are "job creators". Some people with wealth do indeed create jobs, but why bother to start a company that produces in the US when the cost of labor is so much less in the 3rd world. Labor + Materials = Capital
If you own the means of production, you can exploit labor, no matter what country you're doing business in. Do you think these people want to live in a 3rd world country? No, they just want to exploit the lower cost of labor...and sometimes materials. It's all about the bottom line. Corporations in the US used to be held to a standard of doing good for the country. That is no longer the case.
Who have you ever worked for that was poor?
Message [Page 2 of 3]
Go to page : 1, 2, 3
Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Consumer Price Index comes in at -0.3 for November. Could our forum republicans/libertarians/incoherents possibly have been any more wrong?
Similar topics
» Consumer Price Index for December 2014: -0.4% (Hilarious forum predictions inside!)
» Consumer Price Index fell 0.1 percent in August
» S&P Case Shiller Home Price Index signals strong home price appreciation for February, topping expectations
» Bloomberg consumer comfort index soars to recovery high
» What could possibly go wrong? guns and fun...Daily kos story!
» Consumer Price Index fell 0.1 percent in August
» S&P Case Shiller Home Price Index signals strong home price appreciation for February, topping expectations
» Bloomberg consumer comfort index soars to recovery high
» What could possibly go wrong? guns and fun...Daily kos story!
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum