THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[lonewolf]

You can only raise taxes so much until you hit the brick wall of the Law Of Diminishing Returns.

So let's raise those tax levels to what they were during the post-war years. Or during Reaganomics. Back during times of greatest growth. I bet no sale on that one, right?
And how long was "acceptable" for the repay of WWII debt? Debt has only been "America's Great Problem" since early 2009, Obama has been charged with the entire amount due immediately.
It's time to quit fiddle-farting around on the debt, and work on creating jobs. It's all distraction.

When you gonna learn that the government doesn't create economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy? Government jobs you say? They are non-productive and are a drag on the economy. All they do is suck capital from the private sector and piss it into a black hole to garner votes from their various constituencies.

Nope. No sale...I say scrap the entire tax code for the flat tax idea that i have posted about ad nauseum and that you have agreed with several times.

Changing the present code's rates is just an idiot's folly. If you go strictly by the numbers and you raise tax rates to what they were before, you should also expect the income brackets to return to paying the same % of total revenues as they did then. In that scenario, the working class will have to ante up as the upper income brackets return to much lower percentage levels.

[lonewolf]

You can only raise taxes so much until you hit the brick wall of the Law Of Diminishing Returns.

And how long was "acceptable" for the repay of WWII debt?

The point is that they immediately cut spending levels after WWII to begin paying down the debt. Total spending in 1945 was $118.2B. In 1946 it dropped 33% to $79.7B. In 1947 it dropped 28% to $57.7B. It bottomed out at $55.1B in 1948, or less that half the 1945 levels.

Contrast that with Obama's 25% increase in spending upon taking office and tripling of the yearly deficit with no end in sight.

Bush was a bad spender, but 2/3 of his last deficit was made up of TARP bailout money. Money that has mostly been paid back as positive revenue under the Obama administration. Despite getting some $600B in revenue that was borrowed by Bush, he has managed to increase the deficit even more.

If you remove TARP, Bush's worst deficit was around $500B and Obama's over $1.5T .

I'd also like to point out that Obama has NEVER signed a budget. NEVER. Even with a supermajority, the democrats did not pass a budget. They are completely out of control. That's criminally treasonous in my book.

[songsmith]

You can only raise taxes so much until you hit the brick wall of the Law Of Diminishing Returns.

So let's raise those tax levels to what they were during the post-war years. Or during Reaganomics. Back during times of greatest growth. I bet no sale on that one, right?
And how long was "acceptable" for the repay of WWII debt? Debt has only been "America's Great Problem" since early 2009, Obama has been charged with the entire amount due immediately.
It's time to quit fiddle-farting around on the debt, and work on creating jobs. It's all distraction.

When you gonna learn that the government doesn't create economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy? Government jobs you say? They are non-productive and are a drag on the economy. All they do is suck capital from the private sector and piss it into a black hole to garner votes from their various constituencies.

Nonsense. Government money creates lots of jobs, from LUCRATIVE contractor jobs, right down to cashier jobs at stores where people who receive Socsec and UC checks shop. If you shuttered every business that takes govt money directly, or takes money indirectly through people the government pays money to, there'd be hardly anyone left. The notion that government money wouldn't be missed is strictly talkshow-fodder.
On the other hand, an exec who makes 450 times the average wage puts far less into economies (especially local economies) than 450 average-paid workers do. That exec also pays less tax as a percentage of his income than a worker at prevailing wage. The private sector has no shortage of capital whatsoever... the big fish are awash in cash.

Changing the present code's rates is just an idiot's folly. If you go strictly by the numbers and you raise tax rates to what they were before, you should also expect the income brackets to return to paying the same % of total revenues as they did then. In that scenario, the working class will have to ante up as the upper income brackets return to much lower percentage levels.

What makes you think the upper income bracket will actually pay less taxes as they actually pay more taxes? Are you saying that paying the same as we do would deter the elite from staying elite/becoming more elite? That equality is a damper on greed? That's deep, but extraordinarily naive... or at least wishful.

[Banned]

On the other hand, an exec who makes 450 times the average wage puts far less into economies (especially local economies) than 450 average-paid workers do. That exec also pays less tax as a percentage of his income than a worker at prevailing wage.

MSNBC show fodder.

[lonewolf]

What makes you think the upper income bracket will actually pay less taxes as they actually pay more taxes? Are you saying that paying the same as we do would deter the elite from staying elite/becoming more elite? That equality is a damper on greed? That's deep, but extraordinarily naive... or at least wishful.

Just going by the numbers. If you change rates back, you have to assume that all the other numbers go back to close to the way they were on a percentage basis, right? If not, then the whole premise is completely flawed.

When rates were higher, upper income people paid a much lower percentage of the overall taxes. If you change the conditions back to what they were, you must assume that the results will be similar.

Any other assumption is just uneducated feltergarb.

(that means bullshit Johnny)

[lonewolf]

When you gonna learn that the government doesn't create economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy? Government jobs you say? They are non-productive and are a drag on the economy. All they do is suck capital from the private sector and piss it into a black hole to garner votes from their various constituencies.

Nonsense. Government money creates lots of jobs, from LUCRATIVE contractor jobs, right down to cashier jobs at stores where people who receive Socsec and UC checks shop. If you shuttered every business that takes govt money directly, or takes money indirectly through people the government pays money to, there'd be hardly anyone left. The notion that government money wouldn't be missed is strictly talkshow-fodder.
On the other hand, an exec who makes 450 times the average wage puts far less into economies (especially local economies) than 450 average-paid workers do. That exec also pays less tax as a percentage of his income than a worker at prevailing wage. The private sector has no shortage of capital whatsoever... the big fish are awash in cash.

I said economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy.

Government takes .60 cents of tax revenues then adds .40 cents of borrowed capital to get a dollar. Once they get their dollar, they take at least .20 cents overhead off the top and redistribute the remainder back into the economy. This is NOT a positive contribution to the economy. At least the math wasn't positive at Duncansville Elementary School.

Since politics, lobbying and cronyism are ALWAYS involved, big government contracts are way overbid and not necessarily given to the best bidder. Don't believe me? Can you say HALLIBURTON? Yes...i remember you used to say Halliburton all the time.

Well, I can say GE and Solyndra in the same post with Halliburton. Multiply that by tens of thousands.

Oh yeah, the gov puts money into the economy all right...after it has been properly laundered.

[lonewolf]

This should be a budget cutting guide for cabinet members:

[songsmith]

If you change rates back, you have to assume that all the other numbers go back to close to the way they were on a percentage basis, right?

No, you do not have to assume that all the other numbers go back! Duh! You really think that if uber-execs paid the same tax rate as workers, they would demand less pay? Or just quit and go home? How Ayn Rand-ian. If the elite don't get total control of their pay AND my pay, they will quit, and ruin everything, and all business ceases.
I bet not.
Obviously, the American people are fed up with an elite class who avoids their responsibilities, and exploits the working class in every way possible. We pay their salaries, as consumers. We allow them power, as workers. We give them capital, as investors (ala 401k's, etc.). They create nothing. They actually build and design NOTHING. They bear no responsibility when things go bad, when's the last time you heard of a former CEO working at McDonald's after being sacked? They just go somewhere else and "execute," or retire on a platinum parachute. And lobby Congress.
No, buddy, there were still fatcats when taxes were higher, they won't disappear completely. They'll just pay their fair share.

[songsmith]

On the other hand, an exec who makes 450 times the average wage puts far less into economies (especially local economies) than 450 average-paid workers do. That exec also pays less tax as a percentage of his income than a worker at prevailing wage.

MSNBC show fodder.

Prove it wrong. Look up "diminishing marginal utility." 450 working-class families need at least 450 automobiles. One CEO needs only one automobile, which his company provides at no cost to him, as a perk. He may then collect classic Benz's but that doesn't provide many current American jobs, does it? How many jobs do 450 cars provide?
Prove me wrong.

[songsmith]

I said economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy.

If people spend the money they make in the consumer market, on things they need to survive, it goes to business, including small business. I believe that's called economically feasible.

Government takes .60 cents of tax revenues then adds .40 cents of borrowed capital to get a dollar. Once they get their dollar, they take at least .20 cents overhead off the top and redistribute the remainder back into the economy. This is NOT a positive contribution to the economy. At least the math wasn't positive at Duncansville Elementary School.

So the math should be to DECREASE the 60 cents of tax revenue so certain individuals can prosper, and starve a few grannies and lay off cops, then let the worker-bees pick up the rest?
Try your equation again, with tax revenues of 80 cents, with a little Hollidaysburg Jr High math this time. And remember, that 20 cents of overhead and 40 cents of debt, we owe ourselves, as the major stockholders in this exercise. The overhead creates jobs, almost none of which are minimum-wage. The debt creates capital, and I hear capitalism is a good thing.

Since politics, lobbying and cronyism are ALWAYS involved, big government contracts are way overbid and not necessarily given to the best bidder. Don't believe me? Can you say HALLIBURTON? Yes...i remember you used to say Halliburton all the time.

Well, I can say GE and Solyndra in the same post with Halliburton. Multiply that by tens of thousands.

I DO say Halliburton, I still say it all the time. Halliburton is the formerly Texas-based corporation that owns all those trucks out on I-99 that pay no taxes, and employ so few Pennsylvanians. Okay, I admit, they are paying lots of motels and trailer parks plenty of rent, and populating the drunk-tanks in Northern PA, and that means some cost & fine revenue for some counties, but by and large, it's the same Halliburton that charges $400 a gallon for gasoline in Iraq. The same Halliburton Dick Cheney (who was the 2nd-ranking most powerful man in the Free World) was CEO of, and gave many billions to without a bid. I did not support the Bush Admin, apparently I was right on that one.
We both agree that lobbyists are ruining American government, we just disagree on one thing: I want to get rid of the lobbyists, and you want to get rid of the government they influence.

[Banned]

On the other hand, an exec who makes 450 times the average wage puts far less into economies (especially local economies) than 450 average-paid workers do. That exec also pays less tax as a percentage of his income than a worker at prevailing wage.

MSNBC show fodder.

Prove it wrong. Look up "diminishing marginal utility." 450 working-class families need at least 450 automobiles. One CEO needs only one automobile, which his company provides at no cost to him, as a perk. He may then collect classic Benz's but that doesn't provide many current American jobs, does it? How many jobs do 450 cars provide?
Prove me wrong.

Prove that ridiculous tax statement. The average worker is probably in the 15% tax bracket, if he pays any taxes at all. Remember, 50% of wage earners pay ZERO federal income taxes (as you so well know, ). A high salaried exec probably is in the 39% tax bracket.

Even liberals know that 39 is greater than 15 or 0.

[Banned]

The debt creates capital

Stumpy, you aught to let your Kenyan use this one, who knows, the sheeple might buy it.

[Banned]

For the first time, the debt is greater than the GDP.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Check out the total US unfunded liabilities...over 117 $TRILLION!! I don't think that adds in the unfunded liabilities for state and local governments.

[lonewolf]

If you change rates back, you have to assume that all the other numbers go back to close to the way they were on a percentage basis, right?

No, you do not have to assume that all the other numbers go back! Duh! You really think that if uber-execs paid the same tax rate as workers, they would demand less pay? Or just quit and go home? How Ayn Rand-ian. If the elite don't get total control of their pay AND my pay, they will quit, and ruin everything, and all business ceases.
I bet not.
Obviously, the American people are fed up with an elite class who avoids their responsibilities, and exploits the working class in every way possible. We pay their salaries, as consumers. We allow them power, as workers. We give them capital, as investors (ala 401k's, etc.). They create nothing. They actually build and design NOTHING. They bear no responsibility when things go bad, when's the last time you heard of a former CEO working at McDonald's after being sacked? They just go somewhere else and "execute," or retire on a platinum parachute. And lobby Congress.
No, buddy, there were still fatcats when taxes were higher, they won't disappear completely. They'll just pay their fair share.

LOL! Since you don't have any, you don't understand how people with money got that way and keep it. For instance, when capital gains rate was cut, it changed the behavior of the wealthy so much that it actually resulted in a huge increase in revenues from capital gains. Change capital gains rates back and I guarantee their behavior will change accordingly and the government would end up with fewer revenues.

You can apply that same principle to any taxes on the rich. Like water, they will seek their own level.

If you use the Clinton model, you have to use the WHOLE Clinton model, not just the parts you like.

[lonewolf]

I said economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy.

If people spend the money they make in the consumer market, on things they need to survive, it goes to business, including small business. I believe that's called economically feasible.

So you are saying that taking a dollar out of the economy and putting 80 cents back in is a positive contribution?

They teach you that in Vo-Tech Johnny?

[lonewolf]

OMG! MSNBC primary coverage is sooooo entertaining!

Lawrence "Max Headroom Jr." O'Donnell and Rachel "Butch" Maddow are hilarious! Clueless...but hilarious!

[f.sciarrillo]

OMG! MSNBC primary coverage is sooooo entertaining!

Lawrence "Max Headroom Jr." O'Donnell and Rachel "Butch" Maddow are hilarious! Clueless...but hilarious!

I am getting a good laugh out of it also. They even have Al Sharpton on the panel. OOOOOOooooooooo

Chucky Matthews: "The republicans have been forming from the scraps of the democrats for the past 30 years". Great analysis there.

Everyone on that station is on the suicide watch list of 2012. There will be a mess if Obama loses.

[f.sciarrillo]

One more dropped out. Bachmann suspends her campaign.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/01/michele ... _camp.html

They just said on CNN that Rick Perry is also going back to Texas to reassess his campaign, and he must win New Hampshire to stay in it.

[songsmith]

Prove that ridiculous tax statement. The average worker is probably in the 15% tax bracket, if he pays any taxes at all. Remember, 50% of wage earners pay ZERO federal income taxes (as you so well know, ). A high salaried exec probably is in the 39% tax bracket.

Even liberals know that 39 is greater than 15 or 0.

Oh, I see... "No, I can't prove what I'm saying, YOU prove what I'm saying." Okay:

That executive gets paid a stipend paycheck, usually a quarter-million a year or so, on average, but gets $10 million in stock options. His quarter mil gets taxed at the usual fatcat rate, BUT, he claims a bunch of charitable contributions and such on that, so he can drop his tax liability on that. The 10 million he made in stocks gets taxed at 15%, the capital gains rate. He paid 15% tax on all but that last $250K. Your assertion that 50% of people pay no taxes is retardedly irrelevant, unless that 50% gets the same amount of pay as your executive.
So there you go, I typed as slowly as I could for you.
Now, I'd ask you to prove me wrong again on why one guy making 450 times the going rate is bad for revenue, but it's too far above your head.

[lonewolf]

Prove that ridiculous tax statement. The average worker is probably in the 15% tax bracket, if he pays any taxes at all. Remember, 50% of wage earners pay ZERO federal income taxes (as you so well know, ). A high salaried exec probably is in the 39% tax bracket.

Even liberals know that 39 is greater than 15 or 0.

Oh, I see... "No, I can't prove what I'm saying, YOU prove what I'm saying." Okay:

That executive gets paid a stipend paycheck, usually a quarter-million a year or so, on average, but gets $10 million in stock options. His quarter mil gets taxed at the usual fatcat rate, BUT, he claims a bunch of charitable contributions and such on that, so he can drop his tax liability on that. The 10 million he made in stocks gets taxed at 15%, the capital gains rate. He paid 15% tax on all but that last $250K. Your assertion that 50% of people pay no taxes is retardedly irrelevant, unless that 50% gets the same amount of pay as your executive.
So there you go, I typed as slowly as I could for you.
Now, I'd ask you to prove me wrong again on why one guy making 450 times the going rate is bad for revenue, but it's too far above your head.

Actually, the tax rate all depends on the option and when its sold. If it qualifies, you pay no tax until the stock is sold. In order to get the capital gains rate, you must hold the shares for at least 2 years past the option offer date and one year past the option exercise rate.

In all other situations, you pay the regular income tax rate.

In non-qualifying plans, you have to pay regular income tax on the difference between the option price and the market price at time of purchase. After that, the LT capital gains rule applies.

[songsmith]

I said economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy.

If people spend the money they make in the consumer market, on things they need to survive, it goes to business, including small business. I believe that's called economically feasible.

So you are saying that taking a dollar out of the economy and putting 80 cents back in is a positive contribution?

They teach you that in Vo-Tech Johnny?

I can't say with any authority that there's 20% overhead, can you?

What's Hollidaysburg High math say about companies not paying ANY tax? How's that feasible? They're not creating enough jobs, except in other countries, so how does zero cents revenue to government, and minus-zero cents into the local economy cipher up, Archimedes?
Government money like Unemployment Compensation does not get invested and capitalized and hoarded. It gets spent on food and utilities and consumer goods. People are needed to service this business, creating jobs. In addition, all those guys you see building roads, bridges, etc... those guys are EMPLOYED. That guy at the DOT office, the Job Center, aides at the rest home, the cop in the car, schoolteachers, they're all EMPLOYED.
Government creates and sustains lots of feasible jobs, whether the talkshows agree or not. Business is too busy enriching it's leaders to be concerned with anything else, like employing Americans.

[songsmith]

I said economically feasible jobs that make a positive contribution to the economy.

If people spend the money they make in the consumer market, on things they need to survive, it goes to business, including small business. I believe that's called economically feasible.

So you are saying that taking a dollar out of the economy and putting 80 cents back in is a positive contribution?

They teach you that in Vo-Tech Johnny?

I can't say with any authority that there's 20% overhead, can you?

What's Hollidaysburg High math say about companies not paying ANY tax? How's that feasible? They're not creating enough jobs, except in other countries, so how does zero cents revenue to government, and minus-zero cents into the local economy cipher up, Archimedes?
Government money like Unemployment Compensation does not get invested and capitalized and hoarded. It gets spent on food and utilities and consumer goods. People are needed to service this business, creating jobs. In addition, all those guys you see building roads, bridges, etc... those guys are EMPLOYED. That guy at the DOT office, the Job Center, aides at the rest home, the cop in the car, schoolteachers, they're all EMPLOYED.
Government creates and sustains lots of feasible jobs, whether the talkshows agree or not. Business is too busy enriching it's leaders to be concerned with anything else, like employing Americans.

[songsmith]

The debt creates capital

Stumpy, you aught to let your Kenyan use this one, who knows, the sheeple might buy it.

Oh! What rapier wit! Oh, how you showed me! Whatever can I do, I've been bested by an intellectual giant!

Debt creates capital. Your mortgage-holder holds your debt, and you pay ALL of the debt, plus HUGE amounts of interest. Interest IS capital, moron. Debt creates capital for the debtholder, which in this case, is mostly us. Moron.

[lonewolf]

What's Hollidaysburg High math say about companies not paying ANY tax? How's that feasible?

I don't know...you'll have to ask your buddy Barry's friend Jeff Immelt about that one.

[Banned]

The debt creates capital

Stumpy, you aught to let your Kenyan use this one, who knows, the sheeple might buy it.

Oh! What rapier wit! Oh, how you showed me! Whatever can I do, I've been bested by an intellectual giant!

Debt creates capital. Your mortgage-holder holds your debt, and you pay ALL of the debt, plus HUGE amounts of interest. Interest IS capital, moron. Debt creates capital for the debtholder, which in this case, is mostly us. Moron.

So, when you want to start a business and go to buy a building, you better have some capital. Just tell the owner that you have a lot of debt, and that debt is capital. He will just give you the keys without any questions.