Is anyone happy with these results?
The rabid Right Wingers that frequent this forum will never believe this because these numbers where calculated by The Center of American Progress.
Is anyone happy with these results?
The "job creators" are. Now they can grow their wealth even more so in the next 40 years than they have in the past 40 years.
The rich are in control. And, they got what they wanted.
And, the lap dogs on these forums are happy as well. Because,... well, because they are lap dogs.
The rabid Right Wingers that frequent this forum will never believe this because these numbers where calculated by The Center of American Progress.
Look up the cost of illegal immigrants in california.
50 billion a year!
Do you think this money does not contribute to the state debt???
Is anyone happy with these results?
How is it that subsidies are called tax breaks?
Why are we subsidizing any businesses at all?
Where do they get that figure on the bush tax cuts?
It's well known that all government debt comes from taxes being too low. Government spending can never be too high; in fact, it's always too low!It is a factor, but nowhere close to the driving factor behind California's debt problems. Those problems come from poor tax policy.
It's well known that all government debt comes from taxes being too low. Government spending can never be too high; in fact, it's always too low!
Just need to pry the Magic Cupboard open a little farther and everything will be peachy.
We subsidize big biz because they pad the pockets of Congress.
Which is why then the clear answer is to send more money to Washington and let Congress spend it...
Wait a sec...
How is it that subsidies are called tax breaks?
I will also give you a hint, which of other first world nations with higher tax has bigger economy than the US? the answer is none.
Sure European/Canada has higher tax, but that's because they follow socialist ideology. Are they are more successful than the US? not necessary. You can easily make an argument that US is what it is today thanks to the free market capitalist policies we have. Sure there are problems, but we also enjoyed a good period of strong/expanding economy. We have to solve the problem we face today, but not necessary a 180% reversal of the ideology.
Another thing, countries/city states like Hong Kong and Singapore have lower tax revenue as % of GDP compared to the US because they believe in even more free trade and less restriction. But their country is not necessary heavy in debt. It's all depending on how you manage your spending.
OP: Center for American Progress. Yeah, I'm sure that graph is accurate and completely unbiased. Or not.
-snip-
-snip-
Broke? Hardly. We just refuse to collect the revenues required to avoid deficits, because those revenues would necessarily need to come from the Rich, who are now wealthier than ever at the expense of everybody else. Their servants in the Republican party intend to keep it that way, too.
It's simply not possible to eliminate the deficit with increased taxes alone.
I find the progressive's/Left's/Dem's position a curious one. For some reason reducing govt spending will hurt the economy by reducing demand, but taking money out of the hands of private persons so they have less to spend won't?
Fern
When I pay taxes I don't even care what government does with my taxes.
They can take my tax money and burn the money for heat for the poor for all I care.
Why are rich people so concerned with how their tax money is spent when they don't need the money?
How can a rich person be sure they will spend the money better than the government?
I would say keeping more tax money is the worst scenario as that is selfish and will be used to generate more wealth for the individual paying less taxes.
The only people against taxes for the rich are the rich so shouldn't we give the majority what they want?
We don't have democracy for this reason alone. The rich do what they want. We have a monarchy ruled by rich people.
Wut.
Also learn the difference between a monarchy and a plutocracy.
For the 100th frickin time - and probably more - not one liberal here is saying we can. You are falsely representing liberals, repeating a lie about what they say.
You are really that clueless after countless posts on the topic, about the difference between money in the hands of people who will spend it, and the ultra wealthy?
BS. See the post I quoted, that is exactly what was said.
Not clueless, just not falling for that Progressive BS/myth.
You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.
Fern
BS. See the post I quoted, that is exactly what was said.
We'll see how the cuts shape up. The giveaways on the right side of the chart are unlikely to end, bet on that.
Broke? Hardly. We just refuse to collect the revenues required to avoid deficits, because those revenues would necessarily need to come from the Rich, who are now wealthier than ever at the expense of everybody else. Their servants in the Republican party intend to keep it that way, too.
Not clueless, just not falling for that Progressive BS/myth.
You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.
Fern
You don't see me on here saying that raising taxes on the rich means less jobs etc. But you take money away from people, demand goes down; no two ways about it.