You will notice after awhile we all sound alike John..as so far you are the only one who has condoned a 94 percent tax
How should they Pretend?
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
You will notice after awhile we all sound alike John..as so far you are the only one who has condoned a 94 percent tax
-
435Replies
-
4KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I feel another cartoon coming that has nothing to do with being a response
Johnny got caught using his own crap and now he is in a pig sty 6' deep with no way out
So much truth in that statement.
He is digging now....I have been using them against him ...So I suspect he will go pretty radical..he has tried Henry ford on us, Regan ...even some 1950s posters.I feel another cartoon coming that has nothing to do with being a response
Johnny got caught using his own crap and now he is in a pig sty 6' deep with no way out
I suspect an Abe Lincoln toon soon.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I did find the one about Ford being rather curious
Ford was the epitome of a greedy rich bastard who used those below him. Those grateful employees must have missed something eh when they tried to unioniz and got Fords heavy hand thrust upon them a few years later
No wonder Johnny uses cartoons to speak for him.
Ford was the epitome of a greedy rich bastard who used those below him. Those grateful employees must have missed something eh when they tried to unioniz and got Fords heavy hand thrust upon them a few years later
No wonder Johnny uses cartoons to speak for him.
Catavenger
Still a newbie
Henry Ford was also aNazi sympathizer: http://www.traces.org/henryford.html
Yah it's quite interesting and having heard this before I was not surprised..
How many know GM was involved as well ? In fact there are links to all 3 car makers to the Germans..
Ford was the most prominent target because Hitler admired him most for his ability to mass produce cars and trucks as well as some of his writings.. There is no doubt Henry Ford was very open with his questionable view back in those days..
General Motors, James Mooney, received a similar medal for his "distinguished service to the Reich" ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors
Sorry, don't know what that means...
but if that was an invitation to join in on your circle jerk, no thanks.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Question.
Why when bush created all this excessive spending...... bad.
Obama excessive spending and more than bush....not bad.
If we reduced spending to Pre bush {as we should}..then there is no need to raise taxes.
Raising taxes only allows accelerated spending...by raising the debt ceiling...{what the govt is allowed to borrow}
In others word...raised taxes equals now we can raise the debt ceiling.
We already reached the prior ceiling of 14.3 trillion set in 2011...not sure if it was changed for 2012.
But we are at 16 trillion in debt..and I am sure the debt ceiling is just above that number.
Its a trend...keep raising the ceiling...higher taxes will promote the argument of "we can borrow again"
Higher taxes do not always provide more revenues...there is a point of diminished returns...as it stunts exchanges.
Much the same for increasing the price of a product can reduce profit due to reduced volume.
Tax increases do the same....as it leaves less money to make purchases.
Example tax everyone 80 percent for one week ...the majority of money flow will go to the grocery stores...with nothing left over....others business do very little business as a result....these other businesses and employees pay taxes..by spending money "to them"...they make purchases etc.
Thus GDP is high as everyone is buying off each other...our GDP was 15 trillion for 2011...Govt spending was over 6.1 trillion. ...which was 40 percent of GDP.
If we increase the tax we reduce the GDP...{less trading}
Our earnings {total} are much less than GDP..Money you spend gets spent again by someone else and on down the line..Thus a high GDP as the dollar keeps moving.
...to raise taxes lowers GDP...as we have less money to toss around.
Govt spending was 40 percent of GDP for 2011 ...to obtain that same spending with a lower GDP/ increases the Govt percentage...which means taxes have to be raised if we have a lower GDP...which means nothing was gained.
Simply put the GDP will go down....the govt relies on a high GDP ...as every time a dollar moves they take a piece.
In the end its almost 40 percent of that dollar...pretty high.
We have about 130 million households in the USA
6.1 trillion divided by 130 million equals govt spending at about 47 k per household
Some say we have 120 million households...which comes to 51 k per household.
Gee govt spending is about the same as household earnings !!!!!
If we look at it like this...we already have almost a 100 percent tax !!!!!
Who in the fuck would want to increase taxes further!!....Damn liberals thats who...{I am about to change my position on abortion and take the position of "OK for political cleansing"
When the two lines collide what happens? {govt spending verses earnings}
As we can see we have to maintain a high GDP to keep the govts appetite happy with their spending....if not we just as well give em our entire paycheck !!...then what will we buy?
Raising taxes will lower GDP.
Lowering taxes raises GDP.
Whats the magic number?
Who knows but IMO we passed it years ago...Govt spending has increased 40 times since 1960..we are not getting much gain from the extra spending...IMO its pointless to spend more..we have already reached the ideal number and have reached the point of diminished gains.
Why when bush created all this excessive spending...... bad.
Obama excessive spending and more than bush....not bad.
If we reduced spending to Pre bush {as we should}..then there is no need to raise taxes.
Raising taxes only allows accelerated spending...by raising the debt ceiling...{what the govt is allowed to borrow}
In others word...raised taxes equals now we can raise the debt ceiling.
We already reached the prior ceiling of 14.3 trillion set in 2011...not sure if it was changed for 2012.
But we are at 16 trillion in debt..and I am sure the debt ceiling is just above that number.
Its a trend...keep raising the ceiling...higher taxes will promote the argument of "we can borrow again"
Higher taxes do not always provide more revenues...there is a point of diminished returns...as it stunts exchanges.
Much the same for increasing the price of a product can reduce profit due to reduced volume.
Tax increases do the same....as it leaves less money to make purchases.
Example tax everyone 80 percent for one week ...the majority of money flow will go to the grocery stores...with nothing left over....others business do very little business as a result....these other businesses and employees pay taxes..by spending money "to them"...they make purchases etc.
Thus GDP is high as everyone is buying off each other...our GDP was 15 trillion for 2011...Govt spending was over 6.1 trillion. ...which was 40 percent of GDP.
If we increase the tax we reduce the GDP...{less trading}
Our earnings {total} are much less than GDP..Money you spend gets spent again by someone else and on down the line..Thus a high GDP as the dollar keeps moving.
...to raise taxes lowers GDP...as we have less money to toss around.
Govt spending was 40 percent of GDP for 2011 ...to obtain that same spending with a lower GDP/ increases the Govt percentage...which means taxes have to be raised if we have a lower GDP...which means nothing was gained.
Simply put the GDP will go down....the govt relies on a high GDP ...as every time a dollar moves they take a piece.
In the end its almost 40 percent of that dollar...pretty high.
We have about 130 million households in the USA
6.1 trillion divided by 130 million equals govt spending at about 47 k per household
Some say we have 120 million households...which comes to 51 k per household.
Gee govt spending is about the same as household earnings !!!!!
If we look at it like this...we already have almost a 100 percent tax !!!!!
Who in the fuck would want to increase taxes further!!....Damn liberals thats who...{I am about to change my position on abortion and take the position of "OK for political cleansing"
When the two lines collide what happens? {govt spending verses earnings}
As we can see we have to maintain a high GDP to keep the govts appetite happy with their spending....if not we just as well give em our entire paycheck !!...then what will we buy?
Raising taxes will lower GDP.
Lowering taxes raises GDP.
Whats the magic number?
Who knows but IMO we passed it years ago...Govt spending has increased 40 times since 1960..we are not getting much gain from the extra spending...IMO its pointless to spend more..we have already reached the ideal number and have reached the point of diminished gains.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
how about every two years each party gets to pick some pet program/expenditure in a department the other side likes and they have to make an across the board 2% cut to that department . No program can be picked two times in a row nor four out of the last 10 times. There would be a minimum of X dollars of spending cuts required from each pick. This is a cut from the prior years budget. And not from baseline budgeting.
If I can remember the details tomorrow and then great. Otherwise we are fucked. Happy Holidays Burp/Ribit
If I can remember the details tomorrow and then great. Otherwise we are fucked. Happy Holidays
Burp/Ribit The debt problems we are facing is in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. It's not only the amount of spending.
Reducing the spending to Pre-Bush will not fix the problem, you would also need to put the tax rates to what they were.
Our current debt wasn't created by excessive spending, it was created because revenue was lowered while spending was increased. So you need to adjust both revenue and spending to fix the problem.
I always here that you CAN'T tax your way out of the problem... well you can't cut your way out either. You must have a combination.
Lets take a look here on education spending
(CNN) - Public school systems spent an average of $10,615 per student in the 2010 fiscal year, an increase of 1.1% from the previous year, according to Public Education Finances: 2010, a U.S. Census Bureau report released today.
Washington, D.C., schools topped per-pupil spending at $18,667; Utah was lowest, at $6,064. Public schools systems spent $602.6 billion in 2010, a 0.4% decrease since 2009 - the first time the spending level has gone down since the Census Bureau began to keep track.
Although the amount spent per student has steadily crept up in recent decades, it can vary widely based on cost of living and operating. Of the 50 largest school systems, New York City School District spent the most per student in 2010 at $19,597.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/which-places-spent-most-per-student-on-education/
Those figures are old so we can tack a little on that.
How did we make it through the baby boom years when there were so many more students to earners...especially when "stay at home mom" was pretty normal?...you know when most of us were kids
Lets take a school of say 500 for instance it comes up to 5307500....thats over 5 million dollars just for a rinky dink school..where does all the money go?
Lets say about 1 teacher for a class room of 25...principal, superintendent janitor or 2, couple cooks
Thats 26 employees..lets just make it 30...I think the average wage is about 45 grand...comes up to 1.35 million.
That leaves 4 million bucks...thats alot of electricity,books and maintenance...hell we could build another small school for 4 million...IMO we could cut this in about half....obviously tossing money to fix stupid hasnt been working.
This is just one area...where spending seems somewhat high.
(CNN) - Public school systems spent an average of $10,615 per student in the 2010 fiscal year, an increase of 1.1% from the previous year, according to Public Education Finances: 2010, a U.S. Census Bureau report released today.
Washington, D.C., schools topped per-pupil spending at $18,667; Utah was lowest, at $6,064. Public schools systems spent $602.6 billion in 2010, a 0.4% decrease since 2009 - the first time the spending level has gone down since the Census Bureau began to keep track.
Although the amount spent per student has steadily crept up in recent decades, it can vary widely based on cost of living and operating. Of the 50 largest school systems, New York City School District spent the most per student in 2010 at $19,597.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/which-places-spent-most-per-student-on-education/
Those figures are old so we can tack a little on that.
How did we make it through the baby boom years when there were so many more students to earners...especially when "stay at home mom" was pretty normal?...you know when most of us were kids
Lets take a school of say 500 for instance it comes up to 5307500....thats over 5 million dollars just for a rinky dink school..where does all the money go?
Lets say about 1 teacher for a class room of 25...principal, superintendent janitor or 2, couple cooks
Thats 26 employees..lets just make it 30...I think the average wage is about 45 grand...comes up to 1.35 million.
That leaves 4 million bucks...thats alot of electricity,books and maintenance...hell we could build another small school for 4 million...IMO we could cut this in about half....obviously tossing money to fix stupid hasnt been working.
This is just one area...where spending seems somewhat high.
Did you not read anything?
Spending went off the hook with Bush...we need to bring spending down.
If you reduce the spending to pre bush era and keep the same taxes...You bring in more money that you spend,
Is this so fucking hard for you to understand?....Seriously.
Tax cuts does not equate to excessive spending.....fucking think before you post
I swear its people like you that eat my fucking bandwidth up having to show the same fucking thing over and over.
Revenues went up under the tax cuts !!!..until the housing crash.
Look at the god damn chart..I have posted it before...here it is fucking again...it is very clear that bush created more revenue than clinton ...clinton was starting to go into a recession and revenues fell{at the tail} then bush was voted in...then bush cut taxes later.
And again...its not a god damn revenue problem its a spending problem...spending keeps going up.
Pre bush spending was at about 2 trillion for the fed level.
Fucking federal revenues for 2011 were 2 and half trillion...so why the fuck would you need to raise taxes if you limit spending to 2 trillion....and revenues will go up further when we come out of the recession..Look at the god damn chart.
I swear to god,,I feel like I am trying to educate a fucking cow here.....fucking think before you post please.
You are much better off lurking and learning...rather than constantly trying to jump in on topic that is beyond your grasp.
I am not trying to sound like a dick here....but you guys keep harping the same fucking shit over and over while you dont have a clue.
Learn to read.
Learn to pay attention.
And stop being fools.....we have been lied to for decades....take a clue.
It has been shown time and time again by some of the best minds in the business that lowering taxes does NOT raise revenue. Don't listen to the right wing or left wing economists, just listen to the non partisans who can show where it isn't nor has it ever been the case.
You can put up any chart you want, correlation does not imply causation.
If you only calculate the lost revenue to the US government since 2001 for the top 5% it comes up to $1.2 trillion
Are you saying that hasn't added to our current debt?
and that's only for the top 5% of wage earners.
You can put up any chart you want, correlation does not imply causation.
If you only calculate the lost revenue to the US government since 2001 for the top 5% it comes up to $1.2 trillion
Are you saying that hasn't added to our current debt?
and that's only for the top 5% of wage earners.
Now...again
Here is prior spending by the Feds...at the tail end of clinton
Coming in a big shade under two trillion...about 1.8 trillion
The current revenues in chart from above post #277 show current revenues at 2.5 trillion
.7 trillion to the good.
Again as shown....we do not have a revenue problem
We have a spending problem.
A spending problem that bush created...and Obama continued and added to as well.
We need spending cuts...not tax hikes.
Tax hikes slow trading which does nothing to create jobs..in an already crippled economy
And again with the current tax plan we have more revenues than Clinton had during his administration.
If we raise taxes...we will really be hurting in about 2 to 3 years from now.
If you lower taxes you will see the economy slowly start to take off then accelerate real fast...then taper off ,then go back down a touch from the peak.
If you raise taxes you slow the economy.
We could afford high taxes during booms..industrial revolution...massive roadways being built...not only did that create jobs...but made business trading easier as well...lowering costs and causing a boom.
We have nothing going for us now...the only thing that could cause a boom is a big reduction in energy costs. as people could operate at a lower cost..not only will this put 20 more bucks in your pocket at the end of the week...prices will go down as their costs will go down.....the same effect as a tax cut.
Much of the economy depends on small non necessity items.....just getting by and buying only groceries and not blowing money on other goods puts people out of work...when these people are not working...they do not have that blow money to keep other people in jobs.........same effect as a tax hike.
Here is prior spending by the Feds...at the tail end of clinton
Coming in a big shade under two trillion...about 1.8 trillion
The current revenues in chart from above post #277 show current revenues at 2.5 trillion
.7 trillion to the good.
Again as shown....we do not have a revenue problem
We have a spending problem.
A spending problem that bush created...and Obama continued and added to as well.
We need spending cuts...not tax hikes.
Tax hikes slow trading which does nothing to create jobs..in an already crippled economy
And again with the current tax plan we have more revenues than Clinton had during his administration.
If we raise taxes...we will really be hurting in about 2 to 3 years from now.
If you lower taxes you will see the economy slowly start to take off then accelerate real fast...then taper off ,then go back down a touch from the peak.
If you raise taxes you slow the economy.
We could afford high taxes during booms..industrial revolution...massive roadways being built...not only did that create jobs...but made business trading easier as well...lowering costs and causing a boom.
We have nothing going for us now...the only thing that could cause a boom is a big reduction in energy costs. as people could operate at a lower cost..not only will this put 20 more bucks in your pocket at the end of the week...prices will go down as their costs will go down.....the same effect as a tax cut.
Much of the economy depends on small non necessity items.....just getting by and buying only groceries and not blowing money on other goods puts people out of work...when these people are not working...they do not have that blow money to keep other people in jobs.........same effect as a tax hike.
Last edited by a moderator:
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members