U.S. Debt Actually $200 Trillion?

government’s primary role !
--------------------------------------------------------------

IS TO BE LIMITED! I'm sick of US citizens not understanding this concept.
Defense, to coin and print money, limited taxation and limited role in Fed Regulations!

STATES and their goverments are better off understanding their economies as economics in this country are "LOCAL". Even with global trade and intrastate commerce, STATES have a better grasp on their Economy than to the idiot Economic Professors and FED GOV.

My goal is to become wealthy like SOROS. Then to buy each and everyone of the anti-capitalistic, freeloading, Progressive spouting ass clowns an one way ticket to, where ever in the hell you wana go.

Get the fuck out and don't let the door hit you in your arse! And take this ass clown of a president, his buddy Moon Eyes and the Joker Nancy P with you!
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Only ignorance or deception can explain compaing top income tax rates (or any other income tax rates for that matter) that are applied to nominal income on a decade by decade basis without making an adjustment for inflation, without disclosing the change in the number of people who pay these rates and the change in the effect of these rates in real dollars. Anyone with half a brain who looked at the comparison fairly would see what a tremendous tax increase has occurred even though nominal percentage rates were decreased.
More...

Okay then do it. Explain why the tax rate was higher with lower inflation? Explain the disparity in wealth now vs. then.
 
No. I am not going to play a game with you. I read all your posts on this thread and I realize that it would be a waste of my time, you would just be a 'Pain'. Your writing and treatment of the data is highly biased, ideologically driven. Nothing I would say to you would change your mind. You write like you are educated (overeducated I would suggest), so I am confident you can figure out what you need to, if you want, without me explaining it to you through some Painful low brow 'contest.

I will leave you with a couple questions and an observation....Do I really need to explain to you that it matters that the number and type of people who pay the top tax now are different from the number and type of people who paid the top tax then? Isn't that self evident? Doesn't the difference after all explain much about the amount of revenue collected? The revenue collected is of course higher now than it was then, and the reason for that actually partly plays into your ideological bias. The reason is not so much becuase of growth inspired by the lower marginal rate, but the revenue increase is substantially because of how demographics and inflation interact with the progressive tax system. See if you can get your head around that without the blinders of envy or ideology.

Folks on the left miss thier opportunity by considering taxation as a tool of redistribution and social justice; when in fact taxation is simply a tool to raise revenue. The matter of what you want to do with that revenue once you collect it is really a seperate issue. If the left looked at the opportunity properly it would want to structure taxes to raise the maximum revenue possible. It would search out a rate structure that collects the most money possible at the greatest level of growth. Instead the fellow travellers don't even have the right discussion. They never notice that the point is not rate; the point is revenue collected on a sustainable basis...but I don't want to be a Pain, and I have already told you too much, so good luck with your confusion...or agenda...whatever.
 
Quote from Mr Pain:

You were willing to sell our countries future for 30 pieces of silver? I guess it comes down to a basic philosophical difference if the government’s primary role is to keep stocks high. I don’t see it that way and resent interference especially when it has led to the beginning of the end. The question is what to do now and I am sick of fools who say they will cut taxes and reduce the deficit. They never say what they will cut of any substance and the history of the US since Reagan shows supply side does not work.

http://www.usdebtclock.org
More...

And I'm sick of idiots who want to raise taxes but make no mention of the untold billions being stolen from taxpayers (and future generations) in the name of stimulus, AKA "gross misallocation of resources."

If you're so worried about the debt, why do you scream for tax hikes but dont' say a word about things like the $111 million stimulus in CA that created 55 jobs? Or expensive studies on African men's genitilia washing habits paid for by U.S. "stimulus" dollars? Or "jobs saved" in imaginary congressional districts by stimulus dollars:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs...tory?id=9097853

The list goes on and on. This garbage and other billions spent on pork is what should be cut. The "rich" actually save/invest to support our capital markets, spend money in their communities and many provide jobs through businesses they own. Not so with absurdly misallocated stimulus.
 
Quote from MKTrader:

And I'm sick of idiots who want to raise taxes but make no mention of the untold billions being stolen from taxpayers (and future generations) in the name of stimulus, AKA "gross misallocation of resources."

If you're so worried about the debt, why do you scream for tax hikes but dont' say a word about things like the $111 million stimulus in CA that created 55 jobs? Or expensive studies on African men's genitilia washing habits paid for by U.S. "stimulus" dollars? Or "jobs saved" in imaginary congressional districts by stimulus dollars:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs...tory?id=9097853

The list goes on and on. This garbage and other billions spent on pork is what should be cut. The "rich" actually save/invest to support our capital markets, spend money in their communities and many provide jobs through businesses they own. Not so with absurdly misallocated stimulus.
More...

You guys are funny. I am so right wing you would be shocked. I guess I am just not simpleminded enough to realize be distracted by these items as even with this crap, we have some real cuts and changes to make and the fact of the matter is spending has to go down and taxes up to get out of this hole. Supply side economics was a total failure and the republican party lost is mantel of fiscal responsibility. The dems may have been the party of tax and spend but the republicans became the party of cut tax and spend. They are both bad but which is worse for the United States? As far as the stimulus, that started under Bush and Obama expanded it beyond the fat cats. It totally sucks but I’m not going to sit back and listen to idiots say it’s all Obama’s fault and everything will be fine when a republican gets in. Unless that republican is willing to raise taxes and cut spending we are all screwed. It may be too late no matter what they do.

Who got bailed out by the Bush bailout of AIG? Is that worse than the 111M you speak of? Both bad which is worse
 
Quote from MKTrader:

Unaffordable tax cuts? What about unaffordable spendulous from Obama? $111 million to create 55 jobs in CA. And that's just the tip of the iceburg.
More...
Wal-Mart is worth $180 billion and Wal-Mart has 2 million employees. So you can start 11 new Wal-Marts with $2 trillion (not sure) bail-out money and create 22 million new jobs. Instead of giving multi-trillion dollars bail-out to bankrupt companies and banks.
 
Quote from MKTrader:

Unaffordable tax cuts? What about unaffordable spendulous from Obama? $111 million to create 55 jobs in CA. And that's just the tip of the iceburg.
More...
There were media reports saying 8 jobs were created for some $70 million. That is almost $10 million per job.
 
Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are bankrupt. Total ponzi. Nobody will get a dime in 10 years. To add insult to injury, at this rate, the national debt will exceed Greek levels in 4-5 years. GOOD LUCK.
 
Quote from Mr Pain:

Who got bailed out by the Bush bailout of AIG? Is that worse than the 111M you speak of? Both bad which is worse [/B]
More...

As far as # of jobs saved per $ spent, AIG is "better," but like you I don't support either one.

Where we differ is on tax cuts. I say DRASTICALLY reduce spending (including cutting gov't jobs and agencies via attrition) before we even talk about raising taxes.

The worst hypocrisy is Obama saying we can't "afford" to keep tax cuts while he has outspent every other administration by far in 2 years. That's like me going into $1M personal debt for completely frivolous reasons and then telling my family we must hock our appliances because we simply can't afford them (without acknowledging my own faults).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top