Printable View
We just lost 30 special ops, including many Seal Team 6 members in a helo that got shot down. Eerily familiar territory, for those old enough to remember. This is Obama's Operation Eagle Claw. If he gets attacked by a bunny, I am going to shit myself.
As predicted long ago, this neo-marxist will be a one-termer, who BTW (also as predicted long ago) will face a primary challenger (someone of better standing than Al Gore-read my former posts to see who that will be).
Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. What I don't have a problem with is tax reform which removes loopholes and deductions, lowers tax rates overall and expands the tax base to include more of the neary 50% of folks who don't pay taxes. I have no problem with totally scraping our current tax code and going to either the Fair Tax or Consumption Tax, one or the other but not both.
But back to the root of our deficite problem which S&P and everyone else has cited, we have to fix the entitlement programs. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have to be changed, the debate is over on what the problem is it is now who has the guts to do it and how much to cut.
Politicians from both parties have been buying votes with entitlements for decades and it has to stop. Personally I believe if you are a ward of the state, ie accepting government assistance in any form, you lose your right to vote. Taxpayers vote, non- taxpayers don't. Believe me if the politicians had to please only the folks who paid the bills things would change.
If you really want to fix Medicare and Social Secuirty, tell the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, the Judical Branch and all federal employees you no longer have that wonderful taxpayer financed retirement and medical system you now have only Medicare and Social Secuity. See how long it takes them to fix it!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418768]Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. What I don't have a problem with is tax reform which removes loopholes and deductions, lowers tax rates overall and expands the tax base to include more of the neary 50% of folks who don't pay taxes. I have no problem with totally scraping our current tax code and going to either the Fair Tax or Consumption Tax, one or the other but not both.
But back to the root of our deficite problem which S&P and everyone else has cited, we have to fix the entitlement programs. Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have to be changed, the debate is over on what the problem is it is now who has the guts to do it and how much to cut.
Politicians from both parties have been buying votes with entitlements for decades and it has to stop. Personally I believe if you are a ward of the state, ie accepting government assistance in any form, you lose your right to vote. Taxpayers vote, non- taxpayers don't. Believe me if the politicians had to please only the folks who paid the bills things would change.
If you really want to fix Medicare and Social Secuirty, tell the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, the Judical Branch and all federal employees you no longer have that wonderful taxpayer financed retirement and medical system you now have only Medicare and Social Secuity. See how long it takes them to fix it![/QUOTE]Can you be more specific as to what cuts / reforms you would like to see in regard to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. For example, SS receipients get around $2, 000 a month. If you are a couple and both are receiving at these top rates, it can be a comfortable life (no house payments) , but if you are single (divorced, widow) , that is barely an existence. As you know, Americans are not savers, even if a majority are not paying any income tax. It is a consumer driven society where you are driven to spent money and the economy falters if we don't spend. And health care when you are over 65?
Now, reforms have to be enacted to make these programs sustainable for the future. There was talk about privatization, but you know who is going to benefit from that. It is the same people who invented the 401K.
I can tell you exactly what the problem is.
The USA pays twice as much for medical care than the next closest country. Canada and Germany.
Do we receive better medical care?
Cuba which spends 25 cents a person for medical care has a longer life expectancy than the USA.
I am a doctor in the United States and I can tell you this is a farce. If you are overweight, a smoker and an incorrigible alcoholic, go to the end of the line. No liver transplants and no chemotherapy which may add another 2 weeks to your life and no liposuction.
Same with litigation. People who are overweight, smoked cigarettes like they are going out of style and destroyed their liver with alcohol should accept their fate. Don 't blaim pharmacuetical companies.
But try to do this. It is impossible. 60% of every persons lifetime time medical cost are incurred in the last 6 months of their lifes.
Criticize Obama as much as you like but Obama is not the problem. The problem is overweight, alcolholic smokers who want state of the art medical care for their destructive lifestyles.
Obama is not the villian here. The villian is our medical delivery system.
Obama may need to read 'econmics for dummies' but Obama is not the culprit for our entitlement programs which nobody wants to address.
Put another way, I will take Obama over Perry from Texas any day of the week. Perry and his religious nonsense is scary beyond belief.
That's a better answer than the Laffer curve answer, Thanks.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418768]Mat, I have a problem with raising tax rates period. ![/QUOTE]
Let's start with Social Security.
First it was never meant to be an individual's total retirement.
Second, everyone gets a little statement from the Social Security Administration detailing their wages and payments in and what they can expect to receive at 62, 65+ and 70 years of age. If you can't make it on that number then you need to be taking putting away money to supplement it, I believe I read somewhere that is call responsibility for ones self.
Third the retirement age needs to be increased to match current actuarial tables. The tables we use now were fine in the 40's and 50's when folks went home and died at 62 to 68 years of age, but the population is living longer and have more productive lives. It is crazy to expect Social Security to pay for 25 to 30 years of retirement. If you want to retire early put back the funds you need and do it.
Fourth would be means testing. Millionaires and up don't need Social Security, ie Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al. Also stop taxing Social Security Benefits!
Medicare.
Ditto for increasing the qualification age and means testing. Also I agree with El Alamo, those who destroy their health via obesity, excessive alcohol / drug consumption and smoking need to look elsewhere for assistance or at least go to the back of the line. Litigation also drives up the cost of medical care as well as the defensive medicine physicians practice to fend off litigation.
Medicaid.
For US citizens only, press one for English press 2 to be disconnected until you can speak English. We are not the Worlds ER, we simply can not afford it.
Welfare / Food Stamps.
If you're receiving either one or both you are going to have to work for it. There are plenty of tasks cities, states, and the fed pays to have done that these folks can do. Instead of Welfare it becomes Workfare. Talk about an exodus from the rolls if you require them to do something for the benefit rather than lay at home in government subsidized housing.
I have to part company with El Alamo on his observations regarding Obama. No Obama did not create the entitlement mess we are in but he is exacerbating it. ObamaCare ie Super Medicaid is not the answer, it only expands one entitlement at the expense of us all. How is that Hope and Change thing working for you now?
Am I a hard hearted cold blooded conservative, you bet your ass I am. I started working at the age of 10 and have not stopped yet.
El Alamo, Doppleganger,
Thanks, reforms for sure. When you say "cuts", you got me a little confused.
A quote by Marc Faber, the investment guru,
"The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate. If we spend the money at Wal Mart, the money goes to China. If we spend it on gasoline, it goes to the Arabs. If we purchase a computer, it will go to India. If we purchase fruits and vegetables, it will go to Mexica, Honduras and Guatamela. If we purchase a good car, it will go to Germany. If we purchase useless crap, it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy. The only way to keep it here is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in the US. I"ve been doing my part".
Obviously, from a few years ago, I thought you guys might enjoy it. You guys are obviously not doing your part.
[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418742]I mis-spoke, errrr, mis-wrote, kinda. Long term Cap gains get preferrential tax treatment. Short term Cap gains are taxed at the individual marginal rate. I learned this the hard way during the crash of 2008. Anyway, I think the whole system is FUBAR and needs to be replaced-BF.[/QUOTE]Hey BlueFalcon, kudos for acknowledging your error. Also glad to see you using some reasoned and academic arguments, such as Laffer curve. You're OK.
I acknowledge dividends are not capital gains. But both get preferential tax treatment. Long term capital gains at 15% and qualified dividends at 15% or less. The vast majority of this benefit goes to the rich, with a corresponding huge loss in federal revenue. This simply helps the rich get richer, increasing economic inequality. Why should people with 6, 7 and 8-figure income from capital gains & dividends get a 15% tax rate? It is (yes, Jackson) basically free money relative to the work involved. Meanwhile a construction worker working his ass off may be paying a 25% or higher rate.
How do conservatives justify that? Even with these consumption tax or Fair Tax ideas, the common denominator I always see is that the wealthy benefit (or are protected). Even if it means passing more of the tax burden on the middle class and poor. You do realize that for decades now, since we started lowering top income tax rates, wealth at the top has grown far, far more than it has for everyone else. Why support trends that further increase economic inequality and plutocracy?
Please spare me the trickle-down line. The data is in, and it's a lie.
You also copped out on Matt's question about where we are on the Laffer curve. Admit it, you don't know. Historical evidence would indicate we're to the left of apex, see below.
[QUOTE=BlueFalcon]Raising taxes reduces the tax base, therefore reduces revenue.[/QUOTE]And the converse, lowering taxes increases revenue. Right? Well we have historically low tax rates now, why are revenues down? I guess it's not so automatic or simple. For some perspective look at Clinton and Bush43 eight-year data in the following chart:
[url]http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/[/url]
There are many charts and tables like this. They pretty much all show the same thing. As percent of GDP, Bush Tax Cuts never generated greater revenues than under Clinton.
We need to cut spending, AND we need to end the Bush Tax Cuts.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;418770]Criticize Obama as much as you like but Obama is not the problem.[/QUOTE]WOW. Never thought I'd read that from El Alamo !
[QUOTE]Put another way, I will take Obama over Perry from Texas any day of the week. Perry and his religious nonsense is scary beyond belief.[/QUOTE]Very interesting.
Check this out:
Perry vetoed legislation that would have made texting while driving punishable with a $200 fine. Perry called it an 'overreach' and 'government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults. '
Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418778]Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.[/QUOTE]Check that.
Esten will not be happy until we are all equally poor.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 418770]Obama is not the villian here. The villian is our medical delivery system.
Obama may need to read 'econmics for dummies' but Obama is not the culprit for our entitlement programs which nobody wants to address.[/QUOTE]Obama may not be "the culprit", but he is woefully unqualified and completely void of the leadership capabilities necessary to craft a solution to the problem.
That is, unless the problem can be solved with a campaign speech.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
Leadership is a very vague, if not illusionary, concept and very difficult to measure, especially in times of divided government. Most presidential scholars do not have the ISG members' knowledge to estimate that McCain or whoever would have done better or worse than Obama IN THE SAME POLITICAL AND ECONOIC CONTEXT. It is hard to define leadership and difficult to find objective indicators to meaasure the leadership. Secondly, it is highly questionable, especially to conservatives and libertarians, as to how much govt and the president, thereby including presidential leadership, could influence (=change) the whole national economy. This country is a federal nation and the presidency is only one of the three branches. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 418780]Obama may not be "the culprit", but he is woefully unqualified and completely void of the leadership capabilities necessary to craft a solution to the problem.
That is, unless the problem can be solved with a campaign speech.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
These posts do not represent the posters' intelligence or the quality of this thread. Humbly yours,
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418778]Admit it Esten, you will not be happy until we are the Peoples Republic of American.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson; 418779]Check that.
Esten will not be happy until we are all equally poor.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
I just love the liberals believe they are the ultimate judge of what others think, say and believe. That no ones opinion is valid or has merit unless they have sprinkled the holy water of their opinion over it.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche; 418782]These posts do not represent the posters' intelligence or the quality of this thread. Humbly yours,[/QUOTE]In case you missed it, which I doubt, the object of those posts gives as often as he gets, and is prone to offering up either unsupported opinion or outright falsehoods. Small wonder that folks respond or that they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.
John Kerry suggested this weekend that the tea party's ideology just isn't valid and blamed the media for indulging those who espouse opinions with which he disagrees, namely limited government. That's typical of the left. It's fair to attack, demonize and denigrate others' opinions with which they disagree, e. G, tea partiers are terrorists. But, then they retreat to "civility" and characterize everyone else as bloodthirsty heathens at the first perceived opportunity.
A recent example would be all of the chiding and castigation that emerged from the left after Gabriel Giffords was shot. That weekend, it was all the tea partiers fault, particularly Sara Palin and her web ad featuring a rifle scope. Then, it turned out that the lunatic was, if anything, a left-leaning lunatic. And, now they're back to labeling those with whom they disagree as "hostage takers" and "terrorists."
It's absolutely true that conservatives respond in kind, but they're not the ones that jumped on the civility bandwagon, so they're nowhere near as hypocritical as the left and its puppets in the media. Unfortunately, it's a sign of the times that many have grown to accept this double standard. It's also one of the reasons the mainstream news media has struggled for about two decades. Few trust them any more, and for good reason.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418783]I just love the liberals believe they are the ultimate judge of what others think, say and believe. That no ones opinion is valid or has merit unless they have sprinkled the holy water of their opinion over it.[/QUOTE]It would have to be nondenominational, secular, environmentally-safe, union-bottled water ($25 / gallon)
I suspect that we will all be hearing the following, quite a bit in the coming year and a quarter:
Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?
How about 1, 2 or3 years ago?
Everything has gotten progressively worse since Obama took office. Everything.
Liberals will try to blame it all on Bush. That isn't going to work anymore because everyone knows that the problems we have today have little to nothing to do with Bush. I would love to hear the explanation of what Obama has done with the 5.6% unemployment rate and a triple-A bond rating that he inherited from Bush.
With all due respect to El Alamo, Obama is the problem. Pelosi is the problem, Reid is the problem, all democrat members of congress are the problem. Boehner, Snowe, Collins and any republicans, not committed to real cuts federal spending, are the problem.
As for the comment inferring that Perry is a religious nut, please give me a break. They railed against JFK because he was a Catholic and was going to force his religion on the nation. If you're just going to assume that someone who has faith, and is not afraid of saying so, is a zealot who deserves to be castigated, you're ready for your Brown Shirt. Head on down to the liberal commissary to get fitted for it.
Campaign season will start to get into full swing here in a few months. There is much to complain about. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that the successful candidate on the Republican side will be the one who can look at things through rose-tinged glasses. It could have been far worse:
1. We could have wasted far more Stimulus and Stimulus II dollars. The Keynesians currently in office have nowhere to hide from the mess they have made of things. The best they can do is to say, 'We underestimated how much we needed to spend. It should have been trillions more. ' Think of the mess we would be in if they had had their way? Thankfully, it only cost us a few trillion to debunk Keynesianism and put this grand lie to rest for good. Liberals will continue to try to resurrect this theory, but reality will always beat them over the head. Thankfully, we aren't trillions further in the hole.
2. We could have given Barack Obama the "clean" debt limit increase he asked for last January. Had we done so, the nitwit likely would have blown through most of it already. He would be on his way to arguing that the two trillion dollar increase was not nearly enough to "save" the economy. Thankfully, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were not stupid enough to fall for it, even when the lemmings in the press started to push for it.
3. We could have a far worse unemployment and underemployment rate. Obama has been attempting to foment class warfare on "millionaires, billionaires, corporate jet owners" and just about anyone who actually produces wealth and provides jobs in this country. Thankfully, the Tea Party and Republicans wouldn't fall for it. The unemployment rate is bad; but it could have been worse if Obama got his way.
4. But for Obama's poor management of the economy, we might be stuck with ObamaCare. This so-called mandate will be the biggest job killer in our lifetimes. As any business owner can tell you, it will create a very strong incentive to drop employee health coverage. I won't belabor this point, but I have been forced to examine ObamaCare in detail by our health insurance brokers. My company now employs 1, 400 and pays for 80% of each individual's health insurance premium. We would not be able to do this under ObamaCare. Dropping coverage and paying the penalty will be the clear and only choice. But, as matters stand, there is a fair chance the whole shebang will be rolled back in early 2013. No single action item will boost business confidence more than rolling back this monstrosity.
5. Obama wasted so much time and rhetoric on health care during his first year, he failed to focus on his other agenda items, like protecting the union buddies that got him into office. He had control of both houses when he came into office. Things like card check should have been an afterthought for Dems. But, Dems were too euphoric to focus, and they overreached on health care, so they failed to pass many items on their agenda. By the time they looked up, it was too late. Ted Kennedy's seat was lost, they had no more filibuster-proof majority. After just one year of dizzyingly bad politics and decisions, they were on their way to the worst mid-term losses in our lifetimes. When Obama took office, they were proclaiming the death of conservatism. They greatly exaggerated. As matters stand, the press is much more likely to be proclaiming the death of progressivism as the door hits Obama on the backside when he leaves office in a year.
6. Things could have kept going apace for another 20 years as we slowly dug our own graves. There's little doubt America was on a slow decline with an inability to muster the political will to fix things. The slow creep of entitlements would have suffocated us eventually. Obama came along and told us that government was the [i]solution[/i] Not the problem. In a scant three years, he has demonstrated just how utterly wrong this ideology is. We needed a shock to the system to get us back on the right path. There's no guarantee that this is it. But, I would prefer this shock to the 'death by a thousand paper cuts' that we were enduring under entitlement creep and the growth of the nanny state.
We're not finished with the malaise yet. But, it's not all bad, either. Obama set out to destroy the capitalist foundations on which the country was built. He didn't quite get there; not yet, anyway. If we learn from this mistake, we will be better for it. The glass isn't empty yet.
I am not talking about civility. It is about silliness. I just do not want to be a clown dealing w / idiots. Should I do the same? Should I post like "you are demon because you hate poor" or "admit, you want the USA to become like Brazil"?
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418785]they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.[/QUOTE]
Good one. So funny!
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;418786]It would have to be nondenominational, secular, environmentally-safe, union-bottled water ($25 / gallon)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;418789]I am not talking about civility. It is about silliness. I just do not want to be a clown dealing w / idiots. Should I do the same? Should I post like "you are demon because you hate poor" or "admit, you want the USA to become like Brazil"?[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418785]they may not meet your definition of civility. Frankly, I'm more surprised at the restraint than at the attacks.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Huh? You don't like "silly" comments? I submit you're never going to be pleased since you can't control other folks' comments. If you don't want your fake screen name associated with "clowns" then I might suggest a different thread on this board. There are plenty of places with more serious discussions to suit a cultured and refined man such as yourself. Leave the politics to the clowns. The Democrats did.
And, since you called me out, I will admit it. I do want the USA to become more like Brazil in many, many ways. Having just spent a week there, I can identify a number of charming customs and business establishments that I would import straight away. If that makes me a demon or a clown, then so be it.
Stan writes some good Krauthammer-like essays and attack pieces. But more often than not, he slips in numerous distortions and exaggerations which are easy to expose. It's time again to point out a few.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;418733]I know there are many who are unhappy with the outcome. But, it all depends on your perspective. This is a huge win when compared with the absurd notion of handing Obama a blank check "clean" debt limit increase, or even a silly "balanced approach" that he later advocated.[/QUOTE]A large majority of Americans did, and still do, support a balanced approach.
Republican refusal to compromise is probably a big part of why they received such a high disapproval rating (72% Disapprove) on the debt ceiling negotiations.
[QUOTE]Remember "Don't call my bluff, Eric." Well, they called his bluff, and that was all it was. What a surprise. The guy couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.[/QUOTE]You probably don't even remember what bluff Obama was referring to. That was during a meeting when Cantor kept insisting there be a two-step approval for raising the debt limit. Obama insisted there not be another 'hostage' situation where the ceiling might not be raised. He was firm on that and won. The two-step process agreed on only leaves in question how the ceiling will be raised in step 2, not if it will be raised.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;418788]But for Obama's poor management of the economy, we might be stuck with ObamaCare. This so-called mandate will be the biggest job killer in our lifetimes. As any business owner can tell you, it will create a very strong incentive to drop employee health coverage. I won't belabor this point, but I have been forced to examine ObamaCare in detail by our health insurance brokers. My company now employs 1, 400 and pays for 80% of each individual's health insurance premium. We would not be able to do this under ObamaCare. Dropping coverage and paying the penalty will be the clear and only choice. But, as matters stand, there is a fair chance the whole shebang will be rolled back in early 2013. No single action item will boost business confidence more than rolling back this monstrosity.[/QUOTE]The article and business survey below on the Affordable Care Act contradicts your view.
Don't worry though, if your business goes belly-up I'm sure you could get a job writing for HotAir.com
More Employers to Offer Health Care, Reports Find
[url]http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/legal-hr/2011/06/22/small-business-health-care/[/url]
[QUOTE]Despite confusion and mixed emotions in the small business community regarding health-care reform, more mom and pops are expected to offer health care coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act, according to a survey.
A study from the Urban Institute,"The Effects of Health Reform on Small Businesses and Their Workers," finds that tax incentives will drive smaller firms to begin offering coverage to their employees. Large companies, which have been more likely to provide insurance for workers, are expected to continue offering coverage. The study was sponsored by the non-partisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"We find generally positive effects of the ACA on small firms," the report said."Employers with fewer than 50 workers will experience substantial savings on health costs; employers with 50 to 100 workers will see a very small cost increase."
The smallest firms are expected to see an increase in offer rates under the act, while offer rates for those with 25 or more employees will remain stable, the report said.
Workers at small firms, and their families, are going to "reap substantial benefits from Medicaid expansion, individual health insurance exchanges and premium subsidies to low-income families," UI said. This should lead to reduced rates of un-insurance for this particular group.
A second study released Tuesday,"State-Level Trends in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: A State-By-State Analysis," reported that although today fewer Americans are getting insurance coverage through their employer, the reform act will help to bring these numbers back up.[/QUOTE]
OK. Esten is a stinky neo-Marxist and you are capitalist wh*re who wants to brazilize (whatever that is) the USA. I am sure everybody is happy now. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 418793]Huh? You don't like "silly" comments? I submit you're never going to be pleased since you can't control other folks' comments. If you don't want your fake screen name associated with "clowns" then I might suggest a different thread on this board. There are plenty of places with more serious discussions to suit a cultured and refined man such as yourself. Leave the politics to the clowns. The Democrats did.
And, since you called me out, I will admit it. I do want the USA to become more like Brazil in many, many ways. Having just spent a week there, I can identify a number of charming customs and business establishments that I would import straight away. If that makes me a demon or a clown, then so be it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=My Former Name; 418748]Esten,
You have been ripped off. Really gypped, bamboozled, taken. Shit, they saw you coming. Who ever taught you Economics took you for a ride. Demand your money back or least title to the bridge. You know. That bridge in Brooklyn.
You're a great monger, but misled.[/QUOTE]Hey MFN, it seems like ages since we dined in El Establo. I miss that place almost as much as the Recoleta clubs.
I took your advice and called the company I got my online diploma in Economics from. But when I asked for my money back, they just laughed at me.
[QUOTE]Back in the 80's, I was with a startup company in the computer industry. We were financed by Venture Capital whose investors (rich guys) put up money (versus buying rental apartments or bing cherry farms) to help us grow. Grow we did. [B]We hired thousands of poor people who got good well paying jobs and stock options[/B]. Those people later made a bag full of money from the stock. Those rich people did too. In addition, they claimed capital gains. Would they have invested if there weren't favorable treatment of capital gains? Not in a million years! Money always seeks the best return.[/QUOTE]Back in the 80's. When capital gains tax was 33%? Right there your argument is demolished.
Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment. As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.
[QUOTE=Esten;418796]Back in the 80's. When capital gains tax was 33%? Right there your argument is demolished.[/quote]It should surprise no one that you are talking out your rear end, once again. You are either the most intellectually dishonest or most ignorant (or a hybrid of the two) individual with whom I have conversed. You go ahead and live in your imaginary utopia where facts don't matter.
At no point in time during the decade of the 80's did the capital gains tax rate exceed 28%. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 70%, in 1982 it dropped to 50% and by the end of the decade it was 28%. The top capital gains tax rate in 1978 was 39.875% which was cut to 28% in '79 and cut again to 20% in '81. After '86, the cap gains tax went up to 28%, still a huge cut from 39.875%.
Your usual argument that special treatment of capital gains only benefits the rich is complete and utter nonsense, fabricated by the left solely to support their quest to expropriate the private property of the citizenry. According to the Treasury, more than 50% of all capital gains taxes collected during the 50s and 60s, were paid by individuals earning under$50k per year (in 1972 dollars). From 1942-1992, people earning $100K or less (in 1992 dollars – that is $30K in 1972 dollars) paid one third of all capital gains taxes, collected by the US. In 1970, 50% of all capital gains taxes came from individuals earning $30k or less (1970 dollars). Higher capital gains rates punish the middle class. End of story.
[quote=]Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment.[/quote]
When will you provide us with an actual example of this phenomenon?
[quote=] As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. If you tax cap gains at 3%, I can assure you that new capital investment will shatter all past records.
If you tax cap gains at 39%, people will demand compensation in a form that is taxed at the lower, regular income rate.
You are hopeless and clearly put little or no thought into your posts.
[QUOTE=Esten;418796]Historical precedent shows that higher rates will not deter investment. As you said, money seeks the best return. Where else can you get the kind of returns that successful startups with stock options can provide? Not many places. A 100% profit taxed at 39% is still a better return than a 3% profit taxed at 15. You get the idea.[/QUOTE]Esten you are totally ignoring risk. The 3% return is supposed to be low risk, but the startups are extremely high risk. As many of the dot com paper millionaires found out when the bubble burst.
Well, I must say, but for the fact that he's made such a mess of the country, I would enjoy watching the Left eat one of their own. For the past week or so, it hasn't been right wing commentators who have been hammering at Obama. Yes, there are op-eds and commentaries now and again. But, if you've been paying attention, it is the Left that is now starting to feast on Obama. They blame Obama for not being "progressive enough," for being "irresolute," for being "cowardly," inexperienced, emotionless, egotistical, and for being stupid. Seriously.
These are all left of center writers. Shocking that they could say such things about a guy they called "sort of God" after the election. Remember when God won a Nobel Peace Prize. How much have they cheapened that award by bestowing it on someone as unworthy as Obama?
None of these writers and commentators have enough balls to admit what conservatives have been saying all along. True to form, they blame Obama for deceiving them, or they simply point to whichever character flaw they chose to highlight and omit to mention the fact that they're just now seeing these tics in the cold light of day, when it's been plain as Spock's ears that the flaw has been there all along.
Again, I repeat, I would be tempted to get some popcorn and watch this self-immolation. But, unfortunately, Obama's left a mess in his wake, and the rest of us are going to have to clean it up. It will take some time. But, if any of you get some break time, enjoy the show!
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;418797]At no point in time during the decade of the 80's did the capital gains tax rate exceed 28%. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate in the US was 70%, in 1982 it dropped to 50% and by the end of the decade it was 28%. The top capital gains tax rate in 1978 was 39.875% which was cut to 28% in '79 and cut again to 20% in '81. After '86, the cap gains tax went up to 28%, still a huge cut from 39.875%.[/QUOTE]You are correct Walleye. I quickly checked what I considered a reliable source yesterday which listed the 1986-89 top rate at 33%. Upon further checking this was only the top rate for taxpayers subject to phaseouts. 28% was otherwise the top capital gains rate as you stated.
That doesn't change my point though. Which is there was significant investment in business in the 80's and 90's when capital gains tax rates were higher than today. I agree lower rates will tend to encourage investment, but I do not agree that higher rates will discourage investment, at least significantly, if those investments are still giving the best returns around.
[QUOTE]Your usual argument that special treatment of capital gains only benefits the rich is complete and utter nonsense,[/QUOTE]That isn't my argument. My argument is that it [i]mostly[/i] benefits the rich.
See below. We can find some common ground, I believe.
[QUOTE=Dccpa]Esten you are totally ignoring risk. The 3% return is supposed to be low risk, but the startups are extremely high risk. As many of the dot com paper millionaires found out when the bubble burst.[/QUOTE]I agree there are distinctions to be made, not just on risk but also on jobs created. Here is what I have a problem with.
Millionaires, billionaires and hedge funds are extracting huge sums of money from the economy by parking their cash in relatively safe investments. The yields may be low for dividends (2-3% typically) but the profits are huge because the amounts invested are huge. While they may lose money on stock movements, these guys for the most part know what they are doing and make net profits here as well, often with higher yields. The amounts are staggering. For example, the top 10 hedge funds made $28 Billion in the second half of 2010 alone.
Very little of this money (if any) is going to job creation. They aren't 'job creators'. They are professional parasites. This is not worthy of preferential tax treatment.
Here's what I CAN agree on, and I know you guys do as well: Low (maybe zero?) capital gains tax rates on investments which directly and demonstrably create jobs. Like the startup MFN described in his story.
But that's it. The professional hedge fund parasites and other wealthy folks can't tag along if their investments are just a drain on the economy without creating jobs (or worse, killing jobs in the name of 'shareholder return').
[QUOTE=Esten;418804]You are correct Walleye.[/QUOTE]My work here is done.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;418809]My work here is done.[/QUOTE]I can actually hear you purring.
A Wish To Live Forever
I met a fairy today that said she would grant me one wish.
"I want to live forever," I said.
"Sorry," said the fairy,"I'm not allowed to grant wishes like that!"
"Fine," I said,"then I want to die after Congress get their heads out.
Of their asses!"
"You crafty bastard," said the fairy.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418812]I can actually hear you purring.[/QUOTE]Like the diamond-bedazzled kitty sitting in Blofeld's lap (hint: somethings "are Forever")
Lincoln Cover Up.
Have you seen the movie?
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0968264/[/url]
What the Republicans will do to Cover Up There Failures.
Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.
The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations, burdonsome taxes and harrassment is going to result in a nonfunctioning economy - which it appears we now have.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 419071]Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem.[/QUOTE]Narcissistic, no-Marxist, would-be dictators never change their stripes. However, come November 2012 (so long as our ruler allows us to have an election) he will get a pretty strong indication that a plurality of his subjects don't think govt is the answer. Shortly after that, the new president, with majorities in both houses, will repeal Obamacare (one of his / her campaign promises).
As some wizened wanderer opined some 25-26 months ago (within this very thread) Obama had already turned off the constituents (that is everyone who voted for 'Hope and Change" and not because he is black. This group excludes the hard left) that were fundamental in his election and would not vote for Jimmy Carter, I mean Obama for a second term. Further, it was pointed out the many democrats would call for Hillary to challenge BHO in the primary. If she thought she could win the general election (she knows she could win a primary against BHO) she'd run. It was pointed even earlier, that giving Hillary State was a move to box her out of a potential primary challenge. Hillary has done him one better by being virtually invisible, except on a few notable occasions (all of which were offshore) and by keeping herself at such a distance none of BHO's disastrous policies and opinions can be directly linked to her (we know she's not to far from him ideologically, but she doesn't want voters thinking that).
[quote=]The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations, burdonsome taxes and harrassment is going to result in a nonfunctioning economy - which it appears we now have.[/QUOTE]Liberalism is a LIE. To convince people of the LIE, you must support it with more lies. If you keep telling the same lies over and over, some people (even some smart people) will begin to believe it. The American people have been duped more than once into trying liberalism / socialism-lite and the like but you can't fool all the people all the time. Even people who supported BHO can't argue with the facts. Liberal ideologues can't even come up with twisted arguments to support him so they say his failures are from not going far enough to the left.
If elections are held as scheduled, BHO is likely to loose in a landslide of Carter-like proportions. The Senate will likely be under Republican control and the Republican majority in the house will widen. If the Republicans, led by the new president, don't immediately repeal Obamacare, eliminate base line indexing, eliminate most if not all czars, the DOE, Commerce and start to cut the size of government (cutting the rate of growth is not the same thing) they will prove that they too are unworthy.
When did this happen?
NOT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA!
AIG,"Too Big To Fail". If have not seen the movie, SEE IT, OR read your History.
"Unnecessary regulations", MY ASS.
[QUOTE=El Alamo; 419071]Now this is scary. Obama is referring to the federal government as the 'federal family'. Hello, Big Brother.
When is Obama going to realize that the government is not the answer to our problems, [b]*government is the problem."""""[/b]
The private sector is the source of every job in the country. The government pays it bills and employees from money taken / extorted from the private sector. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that [B][[[[[[[ burdening the private sector with unnecessary regulations]]]]]][/B], burdensome taxes and harassment is going to result in a non-functioning economy. Which it appears we now have.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419080]When did this happen?
"Unnecessary regulations", MY ASS.[/QUOTE]Guese you have been asleep at the switch dude! We can't even buy toilets in the US that work properly since the tree hugger types like you regulated all other types of toilets out of existence during the clinton years. Got to flush the ones in my house at least twice to get the job done! LOL! Democrats LOVE regulations on small business. It's regulations on home mortgages that they dislike as it stands in the way of the poor little guys getting to own a house they can't afford. Suggest YOU pay attention to history dude! The facts of the matter are totally NOT on your side. Better to let liberal sleeping dogs lie. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
You got to just love this one.
Gibson (the folks who make some of the greatest guitars) have been raided twice by the DOJ, once in 2009 and again this year. No, not for working illegal's but because they are importing wood from India for finger boards on the guitar necks and American workers are doing the work. DOJ has raided them twice because they suspect Gibson is violating – now get this – an INDIAN LAW prohibiting wood products not finished by INDIAN WORKERS from export. Gibson is not accused of violation of any US statute but suspected of a possible violation of a law enacted in India. Now the US Government is worried about enforcing the laws of foreign countries and denying work to American workers! Gibson is not taking this lying down and is raising hell about it.