Anyone Catch 60 Minutes Today Vol. Tax Pledge

[essential1]

Trickle Down has always worked is correct...... You concentrate all policies in the economy toward the top and the money stays there... And if we are lucky the scraps will trickle down on the rest of us....


As for the story what do you expect from an ideology that has been bankrupt for a while..

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

You do know Ronald Reagan raised taxes six out of years in office, right?

and Clinton cut taxes.  What's the point?  Although neither balanced the budget, Clinton was more willing to cut programs that any president in recent memory.  I don't think most people would be opposed to tax increases if they saw that the money was actually going for what our "leaders" said it would go towards.  Until they can demonstrate that a spending cut is more than just a reduction in the planned spending increase, tax increases should be off the table since it would be going down a black hole.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

You do know Ronald Reagan raised taxes six out of years in office, right?

i love how $%%$*% lying on NT

he never raised tax on the top bracket (which is the only thing that maters). Actually he took the top tax bracket from 70% all the way down to 28% (

). But I bet you didnt know that...

http://www.taxpolicycente...splayafact.cfm?Docid=213

 

[Nike Jordan]

Originally Posted by 4318MichaelJohnson4318

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

You do know Ronald Reagan raised taxes six out of years in office, right?

i love how $%%$*% lying on NT

he never raised tax on the top bracket (which is the only thing that maters). Actually he took the top tax bracket from 70% all the way down to 28% (

). But I bet you didnt know that...

http://www.taxpolicycente...splayafact.cfm?Docid=213

You're saying that no one else matters? Good to hear.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

I laugh when middle class people complain about higher taxes in this country on the rich as if they're ever going to be part of the 1 %.... Or as if the rich in other westernized countries pay so much less.. Take a look at Europe folks.... Then when those same middle class folks get old and use medicare or get sick at middle age and have no insurance they are the first ones to either utilize that socialized medicine or complain how nobody will cover them..

This is why the tea party gives me a headache.. You can't be for lessening taxes then go out and use medicare till you're 85.. There's a direct hypocrisy going on there..


Reminds me of this sign

*SIGH

Socialized medicine is nothing new folks, look around.. Everyone one else has been doing it for while..

This.

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

Originally Posted by 4318MichaelJohnson4318

Originally Posted by Nike Jordan

You do know Ronald Reagan raised taxes six out of years in office, right?

i love how $%%$*% lying on NT

he never raised tax on the top bracket (which is the only thing that maters). Actually he took the top tax bracket from 70% all the way down to 28% (

). But I bet you didnt know that...

http://www.taxpolicycente...splayafact.cfm?Docid=213

You're saying that no one else matters? Good to hear.

When it comes to contribution to taxes basically the 1% being taxed at 70% gives a lot more to the government than at 30%. We would be much better off if the rich were taxed that much these days.

 

[rexanglorum]

Very high tax rates tend to be counterproductive. The Laffer Curve is correct, at a certain point your high high tax rates end up in the treasury collecting less revenue than it would at lower rates. If we have taxes raised on those making a million or more per year by two or three percentage point (essentially, allowing the "Bush Tax Cuts" to expire and to allow Clinton era rates return) it is possible, in my view, likely that the US would have more revenue.

If taxes are raised to 70% on all incomes over 250,000, the number of people who officially make 250,000 per year would drastically decline. The professionals, the lawyers and doctors and hig hend engineers who have a lot of control over how much they work (it tends to be a lot and they tend to hire at least one or two people to help them) will work much less, produce much less and stay below the 250,000 line or where ever the government decrees that they have to start paying punitive tax rates. Others will conceal income, which they do not conceal at current tax rates and others will leave the country or at least send most of their money abraod, where tax rates are lower. You can only get so much revenue from taxation, especially in the long run as the highly taxed groups change their behavior because the fact is that people do not like to work for free or invest and have the returns confiscated. Whn taxes are high, yo uwork less and you just hold on to the money that you have because investing it involves only downside (all risk and no reward because when your investments payoff, you lose those returns to high taxes).

I also fail to see why the Reagan tax cuts disgust you. I wish that this country, once again, could have stretches with 7% growth rates and that we could get unemployment down and that we could improve our standard of living like the US did in the 1980's. The general thrust of Ronald Reagan's economic policies was to reduce (not eliminate, by any means) taxation and regulation and allow American entrepreneurial elan to manifest itself as growth, as job and wealth creation an to show ourselves and the World that our best days really did lie ahead of us President Obama's policies were the opposite, he distrusts most Americans to make economic decisions (he prefers to have small groups of Ivy League credentialed technocrats make decisions on the behalf of hundred of millions) and believes in higher taxes, loose monetary policy, economic central planning and a disregard for the role of uncertainty and how it supresses business investment. The results of President Obama's first term have been the polar opposite of Ronald Reagan's first term.

This Country has major fiscal problems, epsceially our long term entitlements and the fact tha Republicans are pledging to not raise any taxes is hypocritical because they are allowing the payroll tax cut to lapse and is procludes them from being able to make the neccesary deal that would address out fiscal problems. We need modest tax rates increases in order to generate more revenue and we need spending cuts that are a multiple of what ever new revenue we can garner. Perhaps most importantly, we need entitlement reform. For a small amount of tax hikes, Republicans could get the huge spending cuts and entitlement reform that they want and that the Country desperately needs. 

 

[rexanglorum]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

no my favorite is "SMALLER, LIMITED GOVERNEMENT......with the power to force women to birth babies and deny certificates to homosexuals for undergoing a religious rite and controlling a smokable plant which is arguably medicinal"

That is why traditional conservatism is incorrect and inconsistent. If you can trust people with their life savings you should be able to trust them to make decisions about smoking a dried plant or to be able to freely make chooses about whom they will marry.

The same inconsistencies also apply to contemporary liberalism, only in reverse. You can take any drug that you want and abort a pregnancy at any time (essentially decreeing that fetus is "fee simple" private property) but you are considered too stupid to be able to choose whether or not a shopper can get plastic bags at the grocery store.
  

It is not so much liberal versus conservative but authoritarian versus libertarian. The fundamental question should be how wide and extensive should the decision making power of government be. To what degree should the government make your decsions on your behalf?

 

[rashi]

Talking about economics without anybody even mentioning the Federal Reserve and the wars is meaningless. You can raise and lower taxes all you want, if you don't have a sound currency none of the latter matters. Carry on with the artificial politics.

 

[hankmoody]

That financial crisis Reagan inherited was crazy.

 

[rashi]

If it wasn't for Paul Volcker for reigning in on the printing of money, Reagan would have no where near the status he has now among Conservatives.

Reagan was a #+$*$%+ disaster. Tarriffs, raised payroll taxes, ect. Obama has cut more taxes than Reagan

 

[rexanglorum]

HankMoody wrote:

---

That financial crisis Reagan inherited was crazy.

I see you are being sarcastic in an attempt to defend President Obama horrible record on the economy.

If I were President, I would rather come into office on the heels of a financial "crisis" than a real crisis. A real crisis is when your economy is dying as was the case of the US economy in January of 1981, when the level of growth was moribund and had been so for years, unemployment was at double digits, inflation was at double digits and so were mortgage interest rates. In addition, energy prices were very high and unlike today, energy was much scarcer because of price controls that had been in place during the past decade. To top it all off, business investment was dismally low as well and direct foreign invest into the US was also very low.

President Obama came into office in a pretty bad set of circumstances but some of the conditions like scarce and expensive energy, low levels of foreign and business investment and inflation have been partially or largely induced by his policies of hyper minting, prohibitions against fossil fuel extraction and his hostility towards business in general and the uncertainty that resulted.  

 

[biggie62]

Originally Posted by rashi


If it wasn't for Paul Volcker for reigning in on the printing of money, Reagan would have no where near the status he has now among Conservatives.

Reagan was a #+$*$%+ disaster. Tarriffs, raised payroll taxes, ect. Obama has cut more taxes than Reagan

Too many people forget just how important Volcker's decisions were and not what Reagan did.

 

[hankmoody]

Has deleveraging not impacted investment?

I'm not defending the man; I can't really. But to compare the two situations head-on, as you did in your first comment, is disingenuous. Also, you are neglecting the political economy of our times. And the Fed: Obama did not hire Bernanke and Reagan did not hire Volcker (Obama did but we all know how the "rule" is panning out)Obviously, these two men were incredibly influential on the economy, in their respective times. ZIRP hasn't worked. Why? You say economic uncertainty. I say don't neglect Richard Koo's prognosis of this period as a "balance sheet recession."

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Has deleveraging not impacted investment?

Deregulation has actually helped many industries.  Airlines were highly regulated until the 1970's.  Then Southwest "liberated" the skys.  Phone companies were heavily regulated until the 80's when congress broke up "Ma Bell".  Then companies came in and started designing phones to use on the phone networks.  Until the 80's, investments were regulated through brokers.  Then Charles Schwab came in with low cost investing that allowed anyone to create an independent portfolio.

If you're referring to the banks (investment and retail), that's a whole nother story.  They were heavily "regulated" but congress was pushing them to make bad investments into neighborhoods that couldn't afford to pay back the loans they were peddling.  Despite the overwhelming evidence of the impending crash, congress still pushed Fannie & Freddie to buy terrible loans from the banks.

 

[hankmoody]

De-what?

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

And how long do you have to wait in order to get the operation you need?

 

my dude has been waiting on the Okay for a kidney procedure  for 2.5 years now, b.

what're you talking about?

we have a teacher here who is going poor paying for chemo out of pocket.......

while working full time

what country do you live in?

last time i went to the doctor after breaking my nose it took me 4.5 hours to see somebody...who told me, in 25 seconds, i'll be okay.....

my mom went with an intense pain in her neck/headaches..to the point where she couldnt stand up.......we were in the ER for 6.5 hours before leaving...without being seen.....

what country do you live in?

 

[rashi]

last time i went to the doctor after breaking my nose it took me 4.5 hours to see somebody...who told me, in 25 seconds, i'll be okay.....


my mom went with an intense pain in her neck/headaches..to the point where she couldnt stand up.......we were in the ER for 6.5 hours before leaving...without being seen.....


That's the problem. People are going to the ER for non-emergencies. You don't go to the ER if you think you fractured your nose, the Urgent Care gets you in and out in less than hour even with X-Rays and treatment.


There is no reason to go to the ER unless your dying or you have a disorder that needs special attention because of exacerbation of symptoms e.g. Sickle Cell, Lupus. Utilize the Urgent Care facilities.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

Originally Posted by rashi

last time i went to the doctor after breaking my nose it took me 4.5 hours to see somebody...who told me, in 25 seconds, i'll be okay.....


my mom went with an intense pain in her neck/headaches..to the point where she couldnt stand up.......we were in the ER for 6.5 hours before leaving...without being seen.....

That's the problem. People are going to the ER for non-emergencies. You don't go to the ER if you think you fractured your nose, the Urgent Care gets you in and out in less than hour even with X-Rays and treatment.


There is no reason to go to the ER unless your dying or you have a disorder that needs special attention because of exacerbation of symptoms e.g. Sickle Cell, Lupus. Utilize the Urgent Care facilities.





this was in 04.

i was a student and broke my nose outside of the school's hospital (literally)

(the only hospital i can go to under the student insurance i was required to purchase)

to my knowledge, i did what i was supposed to do in the situation.

by the way, there was nobody in ER....i sat in a room for an hour.....

tell me more, tho
  

(the two times ive gone for treatment this year, under my employers insurance, i went to urgent care facilities....still long waits.)

and what about my moms, who was having debilitating headaches and neck pains.......who sat for like 6 hours only to leave...

or my boy waiting on a kidney procedure for years now?

isnt this what will happen if the government runs healthcare and isnt trying to profit off of it?

my point is that people who are anti- want to claim that waits will be long and treatments will be poor

when, in reality, its already like that

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

Originally Posted by rashi

last time i went to the doctor after breaking my nose it took me 4.5 hours to see somebody...who told me, in 25 seconds, i'll be okay.....


my mom went with an intense pain in her neck/headaches..to the point where she couldnt stand up.......we were in the ER for 6.5 hours before leaving...without being seen.....

That's the problem. People are going to the ER for non-emergencies. You don't go to the ER if you think you fractured your nose, the Urgent Care gets you in and out in less than hour even with X-Rays and treatment.


There is no reason to go to the ER unless your dying or you have a disorder that needs special attention because of exacerbation of symptoms e.g. Sickle Cell, Lupus. Utilize the Urgent Care facilities.

this was in 04.

i was a student and broke my nose outside of the school's hospital (literally)

(the only hospital i can go to under the student insurance i was required to purchase)

to my knowledge, i did what i was supposed to do in the situation.

by the way, there was nobody in ER....i sat in a room for an hour.....

tell me more, tho
  

(the two times ive gone for treatment this year, under my employers insurance, i went to urgent care facilities....still long waits.)

and what about my moms, who was having debilitating headaches and neck pains.......who sat for like 6 hours only to leave...

or my boy waiting on a kidney procedure for years now?

isnt this what will happen if the government runs healthcare and isnt trying to profit off of it?

my point is that people who are anti- want to claim that waits will be long and treatments will be poor

when, in reality, its already like that

People think that profiting is the problem with medical care now.  In reality, the cap on hospitals and doctors to make profits is what has been hurting medical care for decades now.  If people were allowed to sell their organs you would have a larger market of available supply.  Right now, a person needs to die before they can give their kidney and the only one who makes any money is the hospital while the patient pays for it.  Many doctors are getting out of medicine now due to the lack of compensation from the government at a time when Boomers are getting sicker and need medical attention more than ever.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

Originally Posted by rashi

last time i went to the doctor after breaking my nose it took me 4.5 hours to see somebody...who told me, in 25 seconds, i'll be okay.....


my mom went with an intense pain in her neck/headaches..to the point where she couldnt stand up.......we were in the ER for 6.5 hours before leaving...without being seen.....

That's the problem. People are going to the ER for non-emergencies. You don't go to the ER if you think you fractured your nose, the Urgent Care gets you in and out in less than hour even with X-Rays and treatment.


There is no reason to go to the ER unless your dying or you have a disorder that needs special attention because of exacerbation of symptoms e.g. Sickle Cell, Lupus. Utilize the Urgent Care facilities.

this was in 04.

i was a student and broke my nose outside of the school's hospital (literally)

(the only hospital i can go to under the student insurance i was required to purchase)

to my knowledge, i did what i was supposed to do in the situation.

by the way, there was nobody in ER....i sat in a room for an hour.....

tell me more, tho
  

(the two times ive gone for treatment this year, under my employers insurance, i went to urgent care facilities....still long waits.)

and what about my moms, who was having debilitating headaches and neck pains.......who sat for like 6 hours only to leave...

or my boy waiting on a kidney procedure for years now?

isnt this what will happen if the government runs healthcare and isnt trying to profit off of it?

my point is that people who are anti- want to claim that waits will be long and treatments will be poor

when, in reality, its already like that

If that's what you could have done in your situation so be it. You could have just made an appointment with the doctor there instead of being in the emergency wing, unless you had difficulty breathing or profusely bleeding. The point is that when you go to the ER you get treated, it's federal law. If you have to wait, then you have to wait. Most facilities are really understaffed, even urgent care centers. It has nothing to do with profit. Hospitals rarely make profit anyway with majority in the U.S. being Community or Non-governmental not for profit facilities.

This is what's funny about outsiders who don't work in health care and to claim they know. Being a provider is not profitable. We make good money, but that's only because we provide a service that requires a lot of expertise and skill, which is extremely scarce. Economics 101. People don't make $7.50 an hour at McDonald's because they have special skill, they make $7.50 an hour because it doesn't take much skill to put a bun on a hamburger and put it in a microwave.


The only people who profit from health care is Big Pharma and the politicians who get lobbied to create a monopolistic environment. Not the providers.

 

[5am6oody72]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

no my favorite is "SMALLER, LIMITED GOVERNEMENT......with the power to force women to birth babies and deny certificates to homosexuals for undergoing a religious rite and controlling a smokable plant which is arguably medicinal"

That is why traditional conservatism is incorrect and inconsistent. If you can trust people with their life savings you should be able to trust them to make decisions about smoking a dried plant or to be able to freely make chooses about whom they will marry.

The same inconsistencies also apply to contemporary liberalism, only in reverse. You can take any drug that you want and abort a pregnancy at any time (essentially decreeing that fetus is "fee simple" private property) but you are considered too stupid to be able to choose whether or not a shopper can get plastic bags at the grocery store.
  

It is not so much liberal versus conservative but authoritarian versus libertarian. The fundamental question should be how wide and extensive should the decision making power of government be. To what degree should the government make your decsions on your behalf?

Good post. I usually find that people who identify themselves in one party or the other want government involvement/regulation to the same extent; just about different issues as you said. Bottom line people will espouse whatever form of government is most convenient for their belief system and what they want to be allowed to do vs. what they don't want other people doing. 
Everyone gets angry when somebody is speeding/driving recklessly and assumes he's just an a-hole and wishes the cops were there to pull him over. Then when you're late for work or your wife's water just broke, you're that a-hole speeding and cutting people off and hoping you don't get pulled over by the cops. 

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

Originally Posted by rashi


The only people who profit from health care is Big Pharma and the politicians who get lobbied to create a monopolistic environment. Not the providers.

i happen to personally believe education and healthcare shouldnt be run for profit.

all that typing and explaining doesnt change that.

im not saying your response wasnt valid or even compelling...

just saying...

anything run for-profit is going to lose some aspect of morality/goodness for profit.

people want to argue with that statement, but unless you're like ben and jerry's or some other sort of "hippy" (sad we have to call caring being a hippy)

the more you focus on profit the less important standard of quality or even outcomes become

you can apply that to any facet of our society

from NCLB's impact on public schools

to medicine, where doctors are being paid to push certain brandnames on people...and you shouldnt even go to the hospital when you need medical help, apparently, we should go to urgent care centers in poor @#@ buildings with black mold on the walls....not the ER where people without health insurance go....

to mcdonalds, where the small burger and fry used to be the normal size they served....wanted more fries? order another small order...., now the large soda is about 6 cans of soda and the fries are cooked with a meat additive in it.....MEAT......IN THE FRIES....the chicken nuggets have some foam like material injected into them that is illegal in every country on this planet EXCEPT the USA....

or chicken farms where they rip the chickens beaks off and take their eggs as fast and as cheap as possible

to how walmart treats its employees, etc. etc. etc. etc.

the stronger your focus is on profits the poorer your overall impact will be....

again, people wanna contradict that with nice quotes and definitions from economic textbooks

but it is what it is.

(i know, theoretically, when profit is your motivator, the only way to profit is to attract consumers to consume, yeah yeah yeah, like i said, it applies to every aspect of our society....every single one)


i mean, lets relate it to NT...

jordan brand has lowered their costs by using cheap @#@ materials......letting more b grades pass off as a grades.....releasing very unimaginative designs....etc.


now, in the late 80s and early 90s....you think they were more focused on a profit or making an amazing shoe for jordan's brand? (remember, nike paid a fine every game jordan wore the Is.....)

now, in 2011, you think they're more focused on turning as large a profit as possible or making an amazing shoe for jordan's brand?

OH.

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by CurbYourEnthusiasm

Originally Posted by rashi


The only people who profit from health care is Big Pharma and the politicians who get lobbied to create a monopolistic environment. Not the providers.

i happen to personally believe education and healthcare shouldnt be run for profit.

all that typing and explaining doesnt change that.

im not saying your response wasnt valid or even compelling...

just saying...

anything run for-profit is going to lose some aspect of morality/goodness for profit.

people want to argue with that statement, but unless you're like ben and jerry's or some other sort of "hippy" (sad we have to call caring being a hippy)

the more you focus on profit the less important standard of quality or even outcomes become

you can apply that to any facet of our society

from NCLB's impact on public schools

to medicine, where doctors are being paid to push certain brandnames on people...and you shouldnt even go to the hospital when you need medical help, apparently, we should go to urgent care centers in poor @#@ buildings with black mold on the walls....not the ER where people without health insurance go....

to mcdonalds, where the small burger and fry used to be the normal size they served....wanted more fries? order another small order...., now the large soda is about 6 cans of soda and the fries are cooked with a meat additive in it.....MEAT......IN THE FRIES....the chicken nuggets have some foam like material injected into them that is illegal in every country on this planet EXCEPT the USA....

or chicken farms where they rip the chickens beaks off and take their eggs as fast and as cheap as possible

to how walmart treats its employees, etc. etc. etc. etc.

the stronger your focus is on profits the poorer your overall impact will be....

again, people wanna contradict that with nice quotes and definitions from economic textbooks

but it is what it is.

(i know, theoretically, when profit is your motivator, the only way to profit is to attract consumers to consume, yeah yeah yeah, like i said, it applies to every aspect of our society....every single one)


i mean, lets relate it to NT...

jordan brand has lowered their costs by using cheap @#@ materials......letting more b grades pass off as a grades.....releasing very unimaginative designs....etc.


now, in the late 80s and early 90s....you think they were more focused on a profit or making an amazing shoe for jordan's brand? (remember, nike paid a fine every game jordan wore the Is.....)

now, in 2011, you think they're more focused on turning as large a profit as possible or making an amazing shoe for jordan's brand?

OH.

I tend to agree with the majority of what you said..

I feel that there needs to be a watch dog that can police certain industries in a non corrupt manner.. Main reason why money needs to be subtracted from politics.. To create a fair and just safety net to allow business to ensue on grounds that are guided to the PEOPLE's best interest.. Unfortunately, now the rules are curved to the benefit of the few on top and not the majority at the bottom.. Those same rules are regulated and can only be adjusted by those put in office by those at the top (through lobbies and political contributions)

This view is often shot down by conservs as socialist or as providing too much control of business.. People buy into that and vote against their best interests but then run and cry foul play when the odds are against them.. People need to learn they can't have it both ways... There must be an equilibrium achieved and if you look to Europe they're doing a much better job at this than us although many of those countries are far from perfect (debt and corruption as well).. It was funny to see how much welfare was accepted by the wealthy last year in that study released a few weeks ago from the gov't.. so obviously our system needs a lot of tweaking..


http://www.thefreemanonli...ed/welfare-for-the-rich/



Cheaper Prices//Higher Profits for Companies = Less Jobs Domestically/Lower Quality Goods

As a middle of the road earner.. I would have no problem paying more for a good and higher taxes for less unemployment and better social safety net.. I'm also far from a greedy individual and like to see my neighbor succeed...

Unfortunately, the wealthy will pour half of their earning into politics to keep this from occurring.. Under the guise of bashing socialism and boasting American capitalism...

As you can see folks the closer we get to absolute capitalism the more the common man loses.. And vice versa with communism because greed will always exist and those at the top refuse to see true income equality..

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

we have found common ground LMAO

like i'd like to say "lets just elect middle class/poor politicians without those ties"

but they'd be even easier to buy

LMAO

its really a huge problem facing our generation.