Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?
Why does the right think the government can create jobs?
Look if we were allowed to look into shale oil extraction/refinement/sales in addition with nuclear energy, re-open the very coal mines that were closed after we spent 100s of billions on scrubbers so we could use that very same coal
Now lets talk tax policy. GWB had the right idea, but what we really need is a complete over haul of the system
9-9-9 that Cain has talked about makes allot of sense
You want me to go on?
Taxes were not inhibiting job growth under Reagan. The uninterrupted prosperity from 1950-1970 happened under much higher tax structures. Reagan's admin ordered all kinds of high tech expensive weaponry, and companies like Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics stimulated the economy.What is the most important goal for anyone who gets elected President?.......getting re-elected, right?Obama has had three years to produce the jobs. He failed. It's time for someone else to give it a try. Is that so hard to figure out?
What is the most important election issue during presidential elections?.......the economy, right?
If the president had the power to create jobs and a prosperous economy.....the economy would never be bad.
The things that caused the economy to be good during the last twenty years have been bubbles. The high tech bubble. The Dot com bubble. The housing bubble. And the man who presided over America during those times did not cause them. Conversly...when the economies were bad....those presidents didn't cause that. Things were crappy under Carter because the country was still shaking off the shame of vietnam and watergate, and the 70's was one recession. Times got better under Reagan because he exploded the deficit with a military related stimulus. Things got bad again for Bush 1 because what goes up, must come down. Things got really good for Clinton because of people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, not anything congress or he did. Things went south for Bush 2 because the housing bubble burst.
What I don't get....is why Americans don't understand this. Who do they believe the electioneering efforts of the party out of power? Obama inherited 2 unfinished and very expensive wars. Obama also inherited an unprecidented crappy economy that no reputable economist said would get better before 2016.
The idea that Obama's policies inhibit job growth is absolutely pure electioneering propaganda created to use the formidable weapon against him the GOP and conservative media possesses.....the ridiculous assertion that Obama could have done what the GOP wanted done about the economy, and that would have worked. It is especially ridiculous because the GOP plan was to keep the Bush tax cuts and all would work itself out. That apparently didn't happen.
I do agree with you to a point. Your comment on RR had some truth in it, but it is also left out as much of the truth as it gave. That his tax policy had much to do with the job creation then and long after also as his stimulus did.
The last comment on GWB tax cuts you left out:
the shut down of some coal production after the consumer spent 100s of billion to use it,
some off shore drilling was shut down,
expansion of oil shale exploration as well as
the extraction of the same
and
you forgot to mention the addition of trillions to the deficit that I am not sure any-one really knows were it all went
In 2007 the last GOP budget was 163 billion over
GWB tax cuts are a very small part of this mess, remove all of that and they can again become a big part
When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is
the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy
How would you propose to fix our roads and bridges if not from using taxpayer money to fund the projects?
AND, question 2,
does funding infrastructure improvement not only CREATE JOBS, but does it not also ADD VALUE to the economy?
When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is
the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy
Wealth destruction? You want to see real wealth destruction, study history. Every time a government falls apart, wealth goes with it.
Wealth destruction? You want to see real wealth destruction, study history. Every time a government falls apart, wealth goes with it.
What is it you think is going on today?
Teachers and there jobs is a local issue, why the federal govt. got involved in it I have no idea
So teaching jobs aren't government jobs? They aren't jobs CREATED by the government?
The entire public school system consists of jobs created by the government AND education is one of the single most important components of ADDING VALUE to the economy.
So dispute that.
tests showed U.S. fourth-graders performing poorly, middle school students worse. and high school students are unable to compete. By the same criteria used to say we were "average" in elementary school, "we appear to be "near the bottom" at the high school level. People have a tendency to think this picture is bleak but it doesn't apply to their own school. Chances are, even if your school compares well in SAT scores, it will still be a lightweight on an international scale.
By the time our students are ready to leave high school - ready to enter higher education and the labor force - they are doing so badly with science they are significantly weaker than their peers in other countries.
Our idea of "advanced" is clearly below international standards.
There appears to be a consistent weakness in our teaching performance in physical sciences that becomes magnified over the years.
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Scores from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment released Tuesday show 15-year-old students in the U.S. performing about average in reading and science, and below average in math. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math.
'Wake-up call': U.S. students trail global leaders - US news - Life - msnbc.com
Voodoo is great for the rich- that is all...
Cry you a river/ you obviously do not pay taxes.
That is Bull Shit.
Was he playing horse shoes or hand grenades?You make wealth in this country you are going to pay taxes on it. If there are un fair breaks for those who use them, them why din't BHO get rid of them from 09-10 when he had close to a super majority?
I think 9-9-9 that Cain is talking about hits the spot
Tax cuts went for everyone in Ws program. Trying to convince people that "rich" people do not pay taxes is absurd
in addition if you make that wealth in this country, before it goes into an off shore account you will still pay taxes on it by law
That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.
That's not true.
You're not repeating Buffet's lie about his $60,000/yr secretary paying 30%, are you?
If you tax a rich person at 60% instead of 40%, do you think they might have less incentive to work long hours?
Maybe they'd have more incentive to cut their hours?
Less incentive to expand their business? Less incentive to hire more workers?
That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.
That's not true.
You're not repeating Buffet's lie about his $60,000/yr secretary paying 30%, are you?
It doesn't matter what his secretary pays. You teabaggers are so easily distracted by irrelevant details, you're like 5 year old children.
Its a FACT that the long term capital gains tax rate - 15% - is LESS than the average tax rate paid by MILLIONS of middle class taxpayers.
Warren Buffet doesn't have to pay FICA taxes on his capital gains - not a dime. Us middle class have to pay FICA taxes on every cent we earn up to around 106000. In ordinary years, FICA is 7.65% - that's already more than half of the 15% that Buffet pays.
A take a nuclear family of 4 that files jointly. The combined income of mom and pop is $90,000. This is above average household income - but hardly living large.
Their standard deduction is $11,400
Their exemptions are 4 X $3650 = $14,600
So their AGI is $90,000 - $11,400 - $14,600 = $64,000
They pay 10% on the first $16,750 of that income, for $1,675
They pay 15% on the remaining $47250 of that income, for $7087.50
They get $2000 in child tax care credits.
Their total ordinary income tax is therefore $6762.50, which is about 7.51% of their income. Add that to their FICA taxes - and they pay 15.16% of their income to the federal government.
What's more - if mom and pop above earn $1 more than $90,000 its taxed at 15% + 7.65% = 22.65%. If Buffet earns $1 more in capital gains - its taxed at only 15%.
That's not what anyone is trying to convince anyone of. The argument is that many of the rich pay a lower rate of taxation than you or I do.
That's not true.
You're not repeating Buffet's lie about his $60,000/yr secretary paying 30%, are you?
It doesn't matter what his secretary pays. You teabaggers are so easily distracted by irrelevant details, you're like 5 year old children.
Its a FACT that the long term capital gains tax rate - 15% - is LESS than the average tax rate paid by MILLIONS of middle class taxpayers.
Warren Buffet doesn't have to pay FICA taxes on his capital gains - not a dime. Us middle class have to pay FICA taxes on every cent we earn up to around 106000. In ordinary years, FICA is 7.65% - that's already more than half of the 15% that Buffet pays.
A take a nuclear family of 4 that files jointly. The combined income of mom and pop is $90,000. This is above average household income - but hardly living large.
Their standard deduction is $11,400
Their exemptions are 4 X $3650 = $14,600
So their AGI is $90,000 - $11,400 - $14,600 = $64,000
They pay 10% on the first $16,750 of that income, for $1,675
They pay 15% on the remaining $47250 of that income, for $7087.50
They get $2000 in child tax care credits.
Their total ordinary income tax is therefore $6762.50, which is about 7.51% of their income. Add that to their FICA taxes - and they pay 15.16% of their income to the federal government.
What's more - if mom and pop above earn $1 more than $90,000 its taxed at 15% + 7.65% = 22.65%. If Buffet earns $1 more in capital gains - its taxed at only 15%.
If you tax a rich person at 60% instead of 40%, do you think they might have less incentive to work long hours?
It depends on how badly they need the money. If they need the money - obviously they'll have to work more to make up the difference, won't they?
Maybe they'd have more incentive to cut their hours?
Maybe. If they've already amasses so much wealth they don't really need anymore and feel they can do without additional wealth. In that case - I can assure you - someone less wealthy with less income who actually does need to make money will be glad to step into their shoes earlier than they would have otherwise. E.g. Bill O'Reilly - sure he might quit if he's taxed more - but its not as if FOX News would just not air anything in his absence. He's be replaced by someone else eager to take his place - and they'd initially be paid less than Bill O - meaning FOX would have more money to invest elsewhere.
Less incentive to expand their business? Less incentive to hire more workers?
It depends on what the specific meaning of "incentive" is. If "incentive" means making more money - then no, it will not reduce their incentive. People will always want more money.
The result of higher taxes can be seen right now.
The result of higher taxes can be seen right now.
That's the result of lower taxes. Taxes have not yet been raised.
The result of higher taxes can be seen right now.
That's the result of lower taxes. Taxes have not yet been raised.
