Obama better start worrying about the Catholic vote as the Bishops are planning protests in June and July regarding Obama's war on Religious Freedom. When will the media start pointing out how liberal this president is as they don't seem to have a problem continuing their assult against folks that are conservative. Time for religions to wake up and support your churches against this attack on their freedoms.
AOCGUY: A demand side tax cut is a tax cut targeted to generate demand, as opposed to a supply side tax cut which is intended to increase supply. Giving tax cuts to millionaires is a supply side tax cut. Giving a tax cut to the working poor is a demand side tax cut.
arthanyel, I can't visualize a tax cut that would increase my demand for something. And mortar, I have been working since high school and even in my poorest days I paid some tax. It might not have been much but I never got back all that was witheld from me.
It is a known economic fact that the impact of tax cuts on consumer spending is inversely proportional to income; the less money someone has, the more likely they are to spend money when they get it. This is primarily due to the fact that poorer consumers have been putting off needed spending because they simply can't afford it, so when they get some money they address those things. The reverse is also ture - if you already make $22M per year, getting an extra $300K does not cause you to run out and spend it, that money just gets added to the Cayman Islands investment accounts.
Therefore, tax cuts targeted at the lower middle class and the working poor generate demand - or more specifically, they make possible the fulfillment of existing, but unrealized, demand.
Mortar - the reason the working poor pay little or no income tax is not because they are not taxed, it is because the combination of deductions and exemptions result in them not owing any federal income tax (which accounts for LESS THAN HALF of government revenues). They still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, telecommunications taxes, and a variety of other excise taxes.
I have to agree with arthanyelon the inverse relationships between tax cuts and income. I make a six-figure salary, although nice, if I get an extra $2,000 a year it really does get lost in the noise. But if my daughter who makes about $48K/years gets that same $2,000 it's a pretty good bet she is going to spend it on something she had not planned on prior to getting the extra money. So, at least between my daughter and me, if one wants to stimulate the economy give the money to my daughter not me.
Every year my kids ask me what they can give me for Christmas and every year my response is the same. If I want it and can afford it I probably already have it. If I don't already have it then I can't afford it and thus neither can you.
arthanyel, no it doesn't make any sense. The tax cuts enacted in 1964 as well as 1984, and 2001-03 were income tax cuts on the now infamous "effictive rate". In Reagan's case he actually lowered the percentage in the tax brackets for all earners while ERADICATING the lowest tax brackets (which Bush 1/Clinton reinstated), just as the 2001-03 tax cuts did. In real dollars current studies show that the working poor had the greatest benefit "in real dollars" from the 01-03 tax cuts. Just because Congress, regardless of party in pwoer creates loopholes for themselves, big donors, and freinds and family does not mean the rich should not use them. Ask yourself why the government taxes SS as earned income (double dipping). Show me where any of these tax cuts PURPOSEFULLY ONLY cut taxes for the rich brackets. Also explain your supply-side theories on taxation in real terms, not academic theory hogwash that has never panned out as intended. In other words, if you would be so kind, use some intellectual honesty and try to find concrete examples of:
A) ANY TAX CUT in history that ONLY applied to millionaires
B) Any tax cut that is specifically "intended" to increase supply, while specifically NOT generating demand.
Most tax cuts will put more money in people's pockets and human nature being what it is (which economics as a SOFT science does NOT account for in its ivory towers) most people spend it, reducing supply, which creates demand as more people get money, and business hires and ramps up production to meet greater demand. Then you hit the breakeven point of less money, but still elevated demand (part of what happened in 2008) so everyone uses easy credit (a Direct policy of government regardless of pary in power) to "get more stuff". This creates an artificial cyclical bubble of lower supply/greater demand/more manufacturing/more jobs -- then greater supply/less demand/lower prices/less manufacturing (or offshoring in our case) and fewer overall jobs. This boom bust has happened regularly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The difference now is that money is valueless (nothing backs it up)and is controlled by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstitutional non-governmental organization. All balance sheets are electronic now, no hard assets, and how could we have multiple tens of trillions in assets anyway? Gotta quit here, would be more than happy to discuss economic theory (because that is all it is) but no one will read this post this far anyway...
TaxJoker: "Your funny Occupy - lets see, Ryan presented a budget"
No, you're funny, since 'lyin' ryan's' budget that willard robmee and all the other extremists in the republican party just love, but it doesn't even balance the federal budget for 28 damn years!
Again, his ridiculous budget doesn't even balance the budget until 2040, and by then, the PNAC NEOCONS like willard robmee, can increase the military-industrial complex to $2-3 Trillion through their endless WARmongering around the world, which means it will NEVER be balanced!
I haven't taken a look at what Obama submitted but correct me if I am wrong but I thought Presidential budget submissions only included expendatures. It was up to the Congress to find the revenues to pay for what they approved.
Now down here in Florida after years of great unfunded ideas passed our legislature someone finally came up with the bright idea that all bills had to include a means of paying for them.
Mitt Romney has officially declared the opening of his silly personal FLIP-FLOP season. Where he backs down on almost every promise made to primary voters to date.
by TaxJoke April 25, 2012 12:51 PM EDT While Obama has been in office - college tuition has continued to rise at an alarming rate - hear are the FACTS --------------------------
TaxJoke. But you provided nothing that says Obama is to blame for that. You've just noted the results of a capitalist system at work. Are you saying there should be communist price controls in place? Where government dictates the price a college can charge?
And you haven't substantiated any of the other stuff you listed yesterday.
Both my kids graduated college long before anyone ever heard of Obama and trust me, tuition had been on escalating ride for a very long time. It's not new and it has absolutely nothing to do with who is in the White House.
And I see that Obama is pushing a plan to financially reward colleges who show successful cost control efforts. But GOP support for it is naturally weak!
Chevy - that's exactly why health care vouchers would do nothing to curb the skyrocketing premiums and costs. Yet that's the solution the GOP says we need.
I'm sure this is a waste of time but if posters here would refrain from name calling (either other posters or oppoition parties) and instead cite reasoned argumenst for and against positions under discussion I think most reasonable people would agree that there is rooom for compromise.
If the first response I here is that im a right/left wing republicon/dumbocrat, facist/communist I'm not likely to be interested in listening to your obviously intelligent rant.
Rational debate is as elusive in today's political environment as principled compromise. I only ask peopleuse real facts and real logic, not propaganda, but that request falls on deaf ears.
Perhaps you and I can have a rational discussion? I am sure there is at least one thing where we have significantly different views :-)
As for this story, about Obama saying Romney has the anchor of conservatism chained to his ankle for the upcoming election, that's likely true. What is scarier to me is House Republican forces (from Grover Norquist to Eric Cantor) saying they don't care about Romney's conservative credentials bcause they do not want a President that will actually lead - they want one that will rubber-stamp their agenda.
Well I am sure most would think that the country would be better off if everyone did as they said, but Amercans are funny that way, we never listen to anyone.
As for having a differing opinions, that's almost guarenteed since I'm internally conflicted on many ideas as well.
Funny thing, I used to be a republican, even worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon). But about the time Bob Dole ran for President I noticed a shift in the tone of political conversation, especially within the GOP. It got progressively worse over time, and yes the democrats caught the disease as well. Finally in 2002 I had enough and dropped my affiliation with the GOP. My wife asked me if I was going to become a democrat but I had some serious issues with some of their positions, paticularly on the issue of abortion, so I became an unaffilliated voter.
I now vote for individuals who I either bellive are the best qualified to do the job or who most closely represent my values. I have yet to find one that I agree with on all issues. Thus I have voted for Bill Nelson(D) for Senate and Jeff Miller (R) for US Congress - although Jeff is endanger of losing my support for reasons other than his party affiliation.
Yesterday I approached my neighbor and asked him to support someone for a local office. I felt she was the best qualified to holdthat position. His response was what party was she representing as he could not support a republican. Now here I live it is next to impossible to get elected to anything if you are not a republican, in fact I don't remember the last time a democrat was on the ballot for a local election. So I told him that he wouldn't vote for a republican then he might as well stay home on election day (Floridal Primary) as there won't be anyone on the ballot he would vote for.
AOCGUY - What I'm saying is this kind of law HAS been used to charge women with murder after suffering a miscarriage! The republicans' attempt to control women, under the guise of "protecting life" is getting riduculous!
Zann, there is no such language in the Tennessee bill. What I see it doing is allowing the state to charge someone with murder should they assualt a pregnant woman and as a result her unborn child dies. I don't see that as a bad thing. This law does NOT outlaw abortion nor does it criminalize miscarriages.
Now if you want to argue Right to Life vs Freedom to Choose, then that is an entirely different issue, which I suspect you and I are on opposite sides on.
We won't fall on opposite sides Guy - because I'm not on a "side" in that issue. The only side I'm on, is the fact that women have caused the unborn children inside them to abort since the beginning of time! And no law is going to keep that from happening. Only change the way they accomplish it. Laws against abortion are unenforceable laws - and they are used for ONE purpose and one purpose only, as a hot button issue to lead emotional people to vote republican!
George... please! I live in Texas! A republican controlled state that was about to FORCE all girls to take a Guardasil shot! Don't Tell ME they aren't attempting to control!
And Zann, you didn't say "this kind of law, you specifically said "Tennesee they passed a law that could lead to women being charged with MURDER because they had a miscarriage!"
Zann I know plenty of democrats that are Pro Choice and plenty of republicans that are pro-life. I will agree that both parties use the issue to their supposed advantage.
But saying that no law will keep women from having abortions, while true, is like saying no law will keep people from killing one another.
Well if it led to that in Alabama - I'm sure it could lead to that in Tennessee!
Mortar that was 30 minutes ago! I'm not wasting time going back to find it AGAIN! You search! You've got the quotes from the article! And if you wanna be lazy and not search and tell yourself I made it up - knock yourself out!
George, the guardasil vaccination only guards against two viruses that can cause cervical cancer - leaving hundreds of other viruses that also cause cervical cancer still out there. I've had Medical Doctors tell me, it is NOT worth the risk! And the law being proposed here in Texas ONLY applied to girls! I'll be damned if Perry was going to put MY daughters' lives at risk just so HE could make more money!!!
Since you seem unable or more likely unwilling to look it up yourself, I'm sure its much easier to tell yourself I made it it all up!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?_r=1
What matters is that both wings of the republican party -- the tax-cutters and the culture warriors -- have been taken over by extremists who support irresponsible policies. And any republican president would have to hedge to the right to keep the extreme wing of the party appeased.
This is why robmee has endorsed 'lyin' ryan's' extreme GOP budget, since it gives the wealthy even more tax cuts that increase the budget deficits through lowered federal revenue, and even according to his moronic calculations, will not balance the federal budget until 2040 -- 28 years from now -- despite drastically cutting services to the poor, elderly, students and the disabled!
Gotta love the economically-challenged teabagging extremists that still scream for a balanced budget amendment, despite the fact that the ryan GOP budget doesn't even balance the budget until 2040!
absolutely wrong on every level, nothing more than partisan leftwing talking points, completely void of truth and fact. Apparently it is impossible for people like to understand that if you confiscated every friggin dime those evil rich people have it would not amount to a drop in the bucket, truth has no bearing on your idiotic blather.
We have witnessed irresponsible policies since the last two years of Bush's term when the Dems had control of both houses, and it's ongoing downward spiral since Obama has been president, the only hope for this country is Obama out in November.
TaxJoker: "Please provide one example for an ultra conservative, far-right extremist view he embraced"
Being a right-wing ideologue and a spineless flip-flopper don't have to be mutually exclusive conditions, and in willard's case, they probably aren't.
The views he's felt compelled to articulate on immigration and women's issues have left him in terrible shape with two crucial general election constituencies, which helps explain why Democrats are now so eager to brand robmee as an ideologue.
Face it, whether it's tax policy, whether it's his approach to abortion, contraception, gay rights, or immigration, he's the most conservative nominee that republicans have had, going back to the 1964 republican candidate.
Tax, Romney is not a far right extremenst but he did advocate right wing conservative points during the primary to pander to the far right wing of the party. What Obama has siad is it will now be difficult to step back form those statements in order to appeal to the mdoerates, independents, and more conservative democrats.
speaking of flip flopping how many pre-election promise has Obama kept? How is it people like you can ignore all the lies, the fact he has carreid on every Bush policy? I guess if those lies worked the first time they will probably work again for libs like you. It is amazing you people are able to ignore the lies and flip flops, it just proves ideologues could care less about reality. It proves Hatred for fellow conservative Americans is all you partisans need for motivation
TaxJoker: "Please provide one example for an ultra conservative, far-right extremist view he embraced"
Second one, is willard robmee's endorsement of the ryan republican budget, giving the wealthiest Americans even further tax breaks to reduce federal revenue and grow budget deficits, and cut education, health care and other services for the poor, elderly and students!
TaxJoke. How you doing on providing factual backup for all the Obama "failures" you listed yesterday. Like, college education going up was Obama's fault. I thought you wanted to debate the facts on those, but I haven't seen anything backing up your claims. Did I miss it?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
He did REDgurl, but it was through DEMAND SIDE tax cuts that republicans voted against, and almost kept it from passing in 1964!
It's the moronic "supply side economic insanity" by republicans now that keep growing the budget deficits since 2001!
Makes sense?
It is a known economic fact that the impact of tax cuts on consumer spending is inversely proportional to income; the less money someone has, the more likely they are to spend money when they get it. This is primarily due to the fact that poorer consumers have been putting off needed spending because they simply can't afford it, so when they get some money they address those things. The reverse is also ture - if you already make $22M per year, getting an extra $300K does not cause you to run out and spend it, that money just gets added to the Cayman Islands investment accounts.
Therefore, tax cuts targeted at the lower middle class and the working poor generate demand - or more specifically, they make possible the fulfillment of existing, but unrealized, demand.
Mortar - the reason the working poor pay little or no income tax is not because they are not taxed, it is because the combination of deductions and exemptions result in them not owing any federal income tax (which accounts for LESS THAN HALF of government revenues). They still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, telecommunications taxes, and a variety of other excise taxes.
Every year my kids ask me what they can give me for Christmas and every year my response is the same. If I want it and can afford it I probably already have it. If I don't already have it then I can't afford it and thus neither can you.
A) ANY TAX CUT in history that ONLY applied to millionaires
B) Any tax cut that is specifically "intended" to increase supply, while specifically NOT generating demand.
Most tax cuts will put more money in people's pockets and human nature being what it is (which economics as a SOFT science does NOT account for in its ivory towers) most people spend it, reducing supply, which creates demand as more people get money, and business hires and ramps up production to meet greater demand. Then you hit the breakeven point of less money, but still elevated demand (part of what happened in 2008) so everyone uses easy credit (a Direct policy of government regardless of pary in power) to "get more stuff". This creates an artificial cyclical bubble of lower supply/greater demand/more manufacturing/more jobs -- then greater supply/less demand/lower prices/less manufacturing (or offshoring in our case) and fewer overall jobs. This boom bust has happened regularly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The difference now is that money is valueless (nothing backs it up)and is controlled by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstitutional non-governmental organization. All balance sheets are electronic now, no hard assets, and how could we have multiple tens of trillions in assets anyway? Gotta quit here, would be more than happy to discuss economic theory (because that is all it is) but no one will read this post this far anyway...
No, you're funny, since 'lyin' ryan's' budget that willard robmee and all the other extremists in the republican party just love, but it doesn't even balance the federal budget for 28 damn years!
Again, his ridiculous budget doesn't even balance the budget until 2040, and by then, the PNAC NEOCONS like willard robmee, can increase the military-industrial complex to $2-3 Trillion through their endless WARmongering around the world, which means it will NEVER be balanced!
Now down here in Florida after years of great unfunded ideas passed our legislature someone finally came up with the bright idea that all bills had to include a means of paying for them.
While Obama has been in office - college tuition has continued to rise at an alarming rate - hear are the FACTS
--------------------------
TaxJoke. But you provided nothing that says Obama is to blame for that. You've just noted the results of a capitalist system at work. Are you saying there should be communist price controls in place? Where government dictates the price a college can charge?
And you haven't substantiated any of the other stuff you listed yesterday.
If the first response I here is that im a right/left wing republicon/dumbocrat, facist/communist I'm not likely to be interested in listening to your obviously intelligent rant.
Perhaps you and I can have a rational discussion? I am sure there is at least one thing where we have significantly different views :-)
As for this story, about Obama saying Romney has the anchor of conservatism chained to his ankle for the upcoming election, that's likely true. What is scarier to me is House Republican forces (from Grover Norquist to Eric Cantor) saying they don't care about Romney's conservative credentials bcause they do not want a President that will actually lead - they want one that will rubber-stamp their agenda.
As for having a differing opinions, that's almost guarenteed since I'm internally conflicted on many ideas as well.
Funny thing, I used to be a republican, even worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon). But about the time Bob Dole ran for President I noticed a shift in the tone of political conversation, especially within the GOP. It got progressively worse over time, and yes the democrats caught the disease as well. Finally in 2002 I had enough and dropped my affiliation with the GOP. My wife asked me if I was going to become a democrat but I had some serious issues with some of their positions, paticularly on the issue of abortion, so I became an unaffilliated voter.
I now vote for individuals who I either bellive are the best qualified to do the job or who most closely represent my values. I have yet to find one that I agree with on all issues. Thus I have voted for Bill Nelson(D) for Senate and Jeff Miller (R) for US Congress - although Jeff is endanger of losing my support for reasons other than his party affiliation.
Yesterday I approached my neighbor and asked him to support someone for a local office. I felt she was the best qualified to holdthat position. His response was what party was she representing as he could not support a republican. Now here I live it is next to impossible to get elected to anything if you are not a republican, in fact I don't remember the last time a democrat was on the ballot for a local election. So I told him that he wouldn't vote for a republican then he might as well stay home on election day (Floridal Primary) as there won't be anyone on the ballot he would vote for.
Now if you want to argue Right to Life vs Freedom to Choose, then that is an entirely different issue, which I suspect you and I are on opposite sides on.
But saying that no law will keep women from having abortions, while true, is like saying no law will keep people from killing one another.
Mortar that was 30 minutes ago! I'm not wasting time going back to find it AGAIN! You search! You've got the quotes from the article! And if you wanna be lazy and not search and tell yourself I made it up - knock yourself out!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?_r=1
This is why robmee has endorsed 'lyin' ryan's' extreme GOP budget, since it gives the wealthy even more tax cuts that increase the budget deficits through lowered federal revenue, and even according to his moronic calculations, will not balance the federal budget until 2040 -- 28 years from now -- despite drastically cutting services to the poor, elderly, students and the disabled!
Being a right-wing ideologue and a spineless flip-flopper don't have to be mutually exclusive conditions, and in willard's case, they probably aren't.
The views he's felt compelled to articulate on immigration and women's issues have left him in terrible shape with two crucial general election constituencies, which helps explain why Democrats are now so eager to brand robmee as an ideologue.
Face it, whether it's tax policy, whether it's his approach to abortion, contraception, gay rights, or immigration, he's the most conservative nominee that republicans have had, going back to the 1964 republican candidate.
Second one, is willard robmee's endorsement of the ryan republican budget, giving the wealthiest Americans even further tax breaks to reduce federal revenue and grow budget deficits, and cut education, health care and other services for the poor, elderly and students!