OT Property taxes

Page 6 of 7  
On 4/26/2015 5:26 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Philo appears to be goose stepping down the town square with his blinders on, and the liberal mantras chanting loudly.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2015 5:05 PM, philo wrote:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-set-to-sign-tax-cut-legislation-b99231851z1-251936261.html
Lowering taxes for the third time in less than a year, Gov. Scott Walker signed his $541 million tax cut bill in a ceremony Monday at a farm in Cecil as he travels through central and northern Wisconsin touting it.
Speaking at Horsens Homestead Farms, about 35 miles northwest of Green Bay, Walker called it a great day for Wisconsin taxpayers and a sign of the state's shifting financial fortunes in recent years.
"Now, instead of billion-dollar budget deficits, we have a surplus — and today that money is on its way to the workers, parents, seniors, property owners, veterans, job creators and others. You deserve to keep as much of your hard-earned money as possible — because after all, it is your money," Walker said.
With growing tax collections now expected to give the state a $1 billion budget surplus in June 2015, Walker's tax proposal will cut property and income taxes for families and businesses, and zero out all income taxes for manufacturers in the state.
Though the state's tax revenue is increasing, GOP lawmakers and Walker are trimming state spending slightly for the next three years rather than increasing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 7:12:12 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Bingo. Nice find Stormin. Sure, it's possible that Philo's taxes still went up anyway. I'm sure he voted for every lib he could and maybe his local govt is chock full of them and they are spending and raising taxes locally. But he comes in here and lies about what Walker promised, what Walker has done, and tries to make it look like Walker directly controls his property tax bill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2015 11:04 AM, Oliver Douglas wrote:

Isn't there some U6 or some similar data about the Obama Depression? I mean, with millions more out of work people, you tell me the misery index went down? I find that dificult to believe.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2015 11:04 AM, Oliver Douglas wrote:

Don't worry. Only 30 million unemployed and quit looking for work. Lets see. 30 mil out of 300 mil..... that's about ten percent, if I figure? (article edited for length) .
by Jim Clifton
Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Print
Here's something that many Americans don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely mis- leading.
White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
None of them will tell you this: If you ... given up on finding a job the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. you are not counted in the figure we see in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed.
Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed.
If you are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%.
The official unemployment rate, amounts to a Big Lie.
A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
Right now, the US is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.
Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/26/2015 04:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Wanna help the US economy? Look for the "Hecho en China" label.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's nothing. When you strip away the myths, what remains tells a different story that some would have us believe.
Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma ? he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit ? and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill. 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan ?signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.? Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan ?raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,? including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan ?a dear friend,? told NPR, ?Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration ? I was there.? ?Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,? said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan?s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is ?false mythology,? Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, ?roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.? Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan?s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980?s did little help them. ?Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,? the New York Times? David Leonhardt noted.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised ?to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,? but federal spending ?ballooned? under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest ? the Department of Veterans? Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman?s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state?s abortion laws that ?resulted in more than a million abortions.? When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he ?never seriously pursued? curbing choice.
6. Reagan was a ?bellicose peacenik.? He wrote in his memoirs that ?[m]y dream?became a world free of nuclear weapons.? ?This vision stemmed from the president?s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war ? and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,? the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan?s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but ?also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control? for the the entire world ? a vision acted out by Reagan?s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua ? something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan?s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying ?I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,? saying that the law ?will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.?
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden ? a prominent mujahidin commander ? emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services? close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan?s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden?s ascendancy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 6:48:50 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Did someone just wake you up? Been asleep for the last month?

Oh, please. What a gross distortion. Sure, there were some minor adjustments of *some* taxes. Reagan never said he was in favor of lowering *all* taxes. When Reagan took office, the top federal income tax rate was 70%. When he left, it was 28%. The tax on capital gains was the same as when he took office. He did get it lowered for a few years from 28% to 20%, but later agreed to putting it *back* to 28% as part of a deal to lower income tax rates on ordinary income from 50% to 28%. So, now as is typical, you libs want to try to rewrite history and use that against him. By the big picture, income tax rates going from 70% to 28%, Reagan more than met his promises of cutting taxes. Also, he never had a Republican house to work with and only had a Republican Senate for part of his term. That he was able to achieve what he did is truly remarkable considering he had the Dems trying to row the boat the other way the whole time.
And you don't even realize how foolish you look. You spend half your time right here, arguing that Reagan created huge deficits because he *lowered* taxes. And the other half claiming that he actually raised taxes. But, heh, anything in the name of the lib cause, eh?

The deficit in 1981 was $79 bil, in 1989 it was $152 bil. Those are in real dollars, but we also had serious inflation during those years. It was 10%+ when Reagan took office thanks to years of failed policies. It was down to 4.8% when he left office, a job well done. So, let's look at those deficits fairly, in real dollars. 1981 $206 bil, 1989 $291 bil. That's an increase of 41%, not a doubling. And let's look at in context of the overall economy, GDP. In 1981 the deficit was 2.5% of GDP. In 1989, it was 2.7% of GDP. In other words, relative to the economy, the deficit was about the same when Reagan left as it was when he started. Why? Because his economic plan worked, there was huge job growth, with good, high paying jobs. GDP grew from $3.2T to $5.7T. Just the facts.

Yeah, let's focus on the nits and ignore the big picture. The Soviet Union defeated, the Cold War won, hundreds of millions of people freed, Eastern Europe free, America's respect in the world restored, the first nuclear arms reduction treaty in history, eliminating an entire class of nukes, the world at peace, the US military might restored, unemployment cut in half, inflation cut in half, job creation month after month of 300,000 to 400,000 including one month where we hit 1.2 mil jobs created.
Yeah, let's ignore all that and focus on apartheid in South Africa. How lame, but it does show the extremes you libs have to go to in order to try to rewrite history.

That lie was demolished above.
During the Reagan

Again, you conveniently ignore that inflation was running 5 to 10% during that period, as Reagan reversed the disaster he was handed. And that the economy doubled. As a percent of GDP, the national debt went from 31%, to 50%. And considering that we won the Cold War, defeated the Soviet Union, freed Eastern Europe, restored America's military might, cut interest rates in half, inflation in half, unemployment in half, created 28 million real, good paying jobs, I'd say that was a very good bargain.
BTW, it's rather peculiar that if you're worried about deficits and the national debt, that you'd be going back 30 years to Reagan instead of focusing on the last 6 years of Obama. Today the debt isn't 50% of GDP, it's 101% and still going up. As recently as 2007, the last normal year before the recession, the deficit under Bush was just $160bil and had been declining for several years. Right now it's $450bil, 3X that. And that's after Obama got the tax increase, Obamacare, all the things he said was gonna make for a woooonderful economy and fix the deficits. Where is the outrage about *that*? Instead you talk about Reagan, just like a 3 card Monty artist.
Reagan

It's not a myth. It's reality. Federal revenue 1981 $599 Bil, 1989 $991 Bil Just the facts.

Peculiar the fascination with Reagan. Under Reagan, the national debt was 50% of GDP. Today it's 101%, having crossed the 100% mark for the first time since WWII. And that is with Obama's tax hikes. Why aren't you bitching about that? We're headed toward Greece territory now. And at least with the increase during the Reagan years, I can list all the good things we got as part of the bargain. WTF exactly do we have for the $8 tril in debt added under Obama? He took it from $10 tril to $18tril, an increase of a whopping 80%. And he's still running $450bil deficits, not in a recession, but in a *recovery*, something *never* seen before. And you have the balls to talk about Reagan? Good grief.

And about this you lib loons are still bitching? You libs said he was gonna start a nuclear war and have the world in chaos. Reagan was right, his plan, his vision, his courage, worked. He defeated the Soviet Union, won the cold war, achieved the first nuke arms reduction deal in history, eliminating an entire class of nukes. And about that, you're still bitching, about that which worked? Remarkable you have the balls to even mention this, considering the state of US foreign policy and the chaos the world is in under Obama. Obama is carrying out the approach that you libs want. It's been a total failure. Russians took Crimea, have troops in the Ukraine, ISIS is winning country by country, Iraq which was stable just 4 years ago, has been given to ISIS because OBama ignored all the advice from his military advisors, the US ambassador to Iraq, etc. He went ahead and pulled all the troops out of Iraq, just to fulfill his campaign promise so he could get re-elected.

Another final lie to top it all off. The mujahideen were already in Afghanistan fighting against the Russians, which had invaded Afghanistan under Jimmy Carter. Does that ring a bell? It's what strong dictators do when there is a weak, pussy lib in office. That's why they just took Crimea, invaded Ukraine and Putin pees on Obama's head every chance he gets. Reagan did supply arms to the mujahideen so they could fight the Russians. It was very successful, they whooped the Russians real good. Was he supposed to be able to see 30 years into the future, that some of them would go on to become Taliban and Al Qaeda? Reagan has been gone for 3 decades, crazy muslims are sprouting up everywhere. Unbelievable that you'd try to pin any of that on him. And how exactly is Obama's typical lib refusal to supply needed arms to *anyone* working? Again, given the unprecedented mess that Obama has the world in right now, it's unbelievable you;d have the nerve to even bring up Reagan. But that's what you loon libs like to do. It didn't work here, not today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He raised the deficit? How does the Pres (actually any Pres.) raise the deficit when the Congress passes the budget and his ability to do much about it is limited. Especially after the political blowback from when he closed down the government.

See above. If you look at more than the top number, you will note after the first year, revenues were up to where they were previously and for the next 3 years or so (until the inevitable equillibrium that economic systems tend toward) the rate of increase in revenues was above what it had been in the 3-4 years before. If you look at the scoring from the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation, tax receipts were almost double what was expected from the get go. Expenditures, on the other hand, accelerated as a percentage increase year over year. A big contributor to the deficit controlled by Congress.

taxes but by law put them only in non-marketable government securities with NO mechanism to pay them back. The myth of bailing out SS is one that, in fairness, has been perpetrated across multiple generations of Presidents and Congresses of both parties. We have something like a127 trillion unfunded liability in SS alone.

The deal was that we would then "close off the borders" and it was to be a one time thing. It was part of a deal with the Congress (again studiously ignored by all parties, all Congresses, and all Presidents). Same deal during Bush with same outcome.
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2015 10:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:

(text trimmed)

Makes me wonder what's so bad about Wisconsin? I mean, taxes lowered three times, government revenue went up, lowered state spending.
What's not to like?
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/25/2015 08:06 PM, philo wrote:

Sure!
We got ObamaCare now so the W-2 wage slaves get to pay for the "free" ObamaCare for all the fat/lazy/obese Democrats.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In belched:

So, you don't agree with Obama givin in to Iran, then?

Why are you complaining then?

Apparently you do. You clearly stated you're a Democrat and vote that way most of time. Below you move the goalposts again. I never asked about past president, I asked you about this one and if you would vote for Hillary. Also, what about obama and his misuse of executive powers and total lack of understanding of constitutional law?

Then why do you call yourself a Democrat rather than an Independent?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/26/2015 04:27 PM, ChairMan wrote: l , USSR would not have put the missiles in Cuba. r fuckwit worse than Carter.

If I thought an Independent candidate actually had a chance of winning I'd vote for them.
I do not believe in simply throwing away my vote on someone who does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In belched:

You don't have to vote independent just cuz you call yourself one. just like you can vote Republican even though you say you're Democrat Also, I find it *very* interesting that is the only question you chose to answer. Why? Here they are again, in case you missed them

So, you don't agree with Obama givin in to Iran, then?

Why are you complaining then?

Apparently you do. You clearly stated you're a Democrat and vote that way most of time. Below you move the goalposts again. I never asked about past president, I asked you about this one and if you would vote for Hillary. Also, what about obama and his misuse of executive powers and total lack of understanding of constitutional law?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/26/2015 06:43 PM, ChairMan wrote:

Although I am now all argued out and am going back to home repair questions...to be fair...if someone I disagree with does say something right...I'll give them credit
here is a side of Bush that I can agree with (much to my surprise)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/politics/in-rare-remarks-george-w-bush-argues-against-the-lifting-of-iran-sanctions.html?_r=0
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In belched:

Answering questions on your beliefs is arguing? I believe you have answered more than you think by avoiding these simple questions
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2015 7:05 PM, philo wrote:

Change has to start some where. Since the establishment candidate has a guaranteed win, you can always send a message.
Give Diebold electronic voting some thing to do, cancelling your vote and changing it.
And, after all, what differnce at this point does it make, if one voter pushes the third party lever? Do you get some kind of personal crushing defeat if you vote for row E, and the guy on row A wins? Does it ruin your entire day?
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

His biggest mistake was trusting the Dems in the Congress. The ill-advised Budget Summit was only held AFTER GHW said he would discuss tax increases along with budget cuts at the insistence of the Dems who would not even entertain the idea otherwise. The instituted the tax cut, forgot to get around to doing the budget cuts and proceeded to beat GHW around the face and head with the tax increases THEY insisted upon. I think this explains a lot of GW's distrust of Congress.

Greenspan because of another long-term era of easy money and Gates as a rather alliterative proxy for the great gains in productivity brought about by computers and automation. Dems and others notwithstanding, the deficits had returned by the time he left office.

the G-man himself noted: "They [financial crises] are all different, but they have one fundamental source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of human beings when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume that it will continue."

And yet it took almost his entire presidency to get back to full employment and even that is suspect since it is noted that much of the reason we are back at lower rates is that there are record high numbers of people who want full time employment yet are working part time and very high numbers of people who have given up entirely looking work and neither of these are counted as unemployed.

--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/26/2015 06:09 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

<snip> o difficult.

Nope, within six months of his election, my plummeting portfolio leveled off and by the end of the his first year in office, my work furlough ended and I went back to my normal five day week.
It took a few years but my portfolio bounced back and is now better than ever.
Bush was a total fuckwit .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

this feat? Actually this is pretty much a textbook case of as long as I am doing okay, so is the economy. (A widely shared thought, BTW)

Wait about 6 months or a year to see what happens when the Fed starts pulling back.

You have yet to mention what HE did that caused any of this.
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.