O/T: Welcome To Big Time Politics

Page 3 of 4  


I think Leon is forgetting what the marginal tax rates were in the Eisenhower administration.
Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're debt estimate is over 25% low (>$14B). Barry has been busy.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Well, he DID post his information yesterday....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:

Up about 40% from two years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what? Reducing taxes and expending money to fight two wars doesn't put money into the piggybank.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly what taxes have been reduced?

They have been going on *far* longer than two years.

Neither does spending 65% more than you make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, indeed, it does date from more than 2 years ago. Remember that at one time (I believe it was the Clinton era) that there was a surplus? Tax cuts (to the rich especially) and a war in Iraq based on intended or unintended deception plus a mismanaged war in Afganistan caused the current deficit. This was of course compounded by mismanagement of several branches of governmemt (Bureau of mining etc, and oversight of banking are only 2 of them) caused the housing bubble.
Now everyone wants to keep their benefits that they are "entitled" to, and wants someone else to pay. I guess that is human nature, but what about the common good?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/20/2011 05:38 AM, Han wrote:

If you believe there was a surplus, check out the national debt history. You'll find the last time the debt was reduced was in the last year of the Eisenhower administration. The debt has increased every year since.

The deficit has quadrupled in the last two years.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

--------------------------------- Once the "creative accounting" procedures used between 2001 thru 2008 were corrected and the total real debt published, Obama was handed a 1.2 trillion debt when he was handed the keys to the office in 2009.
As of this writing two years later, don't think the debt has quite reached 4.4 trillion required to quadruple the debt, but it is just another smoke and mirrors job by the lobbyists of the rich and famous to protect their client's piggy banks.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/20/2011 02:48 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

First, what the "one" was handed was the "deficit" of about $400 billion and a "debt" of about $10 trillion. You are aware of the relationship of debt/deficit/surplus? The deficit is now about $1.6 trillion and the debt is now over $14 trillion.
If you don't believe me, check out the US gov debt web site:
<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
The "one" has control of the government debt web site, so why would he allow these numbers to be made public if he disagreed with them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both wrong and irrelevant.

Both wrong and irrelevant.

The 4T spent in the last two years wasn't all the "housing bubble", rather a "government bubble".

How about everyone keeping their "entitlements" that they had in, say, 2006, for a start?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since you like to go back, ewwhy not go back to the tax rates of yesteryear too?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2006? Sure, no problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Why not 2000, or 1950? Oh, wait, you rather cut benefits than pay taxes. Well, you'll have your wish. All of us will have benefits cut. I just hope my savings will be inflation proof. I am retired, and loving it!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because I thought we were actually trying to be realistic. I guess I should have known better.

To 2006 levels? That's a good start.
Just wait until the stagflation hits. We'll see if you love that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Han" wrote:

------------------------------------------- Remember the farce of "trickle down economics" courtesy of Reagan?
If you bother to check the records, the "rich and famous"(top 5% of income earners) high income portion of the population has seen it's taxes continue to be reduced since 1986.
Those businesses who could afford the "K" street lobbyists have also seen their investment richly rewarded in the form of reduced taxes.
As long as the little guy believes the dream he is fed that when he gets to be a big guy, (top 5% of income earners), he will be part of the "club", nobody is going to get his newly generated assets, the easier it becomes to control the little guy.
Most of those dreamers have a better shot at winning the lottery.
The idea that a business will not be competitive if it has to pay taxes but rather that tax burden should be transferred to it's employees, suggests a business that probably shouldn't stay in business.
Businesses that provide goods and services the market needs and wants, don't have a problem paying taxes.
Like it or not, government is necessary and has a cost in our society.
Since the end of WWII, the total cost of government, which includes everything from the local dog catcher to the president, has remained constant at about 35% plus or minus a point.
Now who gets the honor of paying that 35% is what this discussion is all about.
So far, the top 5% of income earners appear to be doing a pretty good job avoiding them.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good accountant will work miracles.
A good accountant A good lawyer A good doctor.
Ya needs them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:25:31 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
We will probably all agree there, Lew.
But, like it or not, BIG government is UNnecessary and adds a devastating cost to (and effect upon) our society.
-- The more passions and desires one has, the more ways one has of being happy. -- Charlotte-Catherine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

False. In actuality, it's risen from 20% at the end of WWII to over 40% today. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2011 8:16 AM, Leon wrote:

Actually I believe it is up to about 14,000,000,000,000,000 else why would we have to be raising the debt ceiling which is about 14.3T.
I believe is was about 10,000,000,000,000,000 when pelosi pulled the plug on the financial industries in Sept 28, 2008, as obama has been adding about 1.5T every year since he took office.
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.