LOL. PAUL RYAN as Vice President? Winning Ticket?
captainquiggle
2012/08/11 12:43:29
|
|
|||||
|
53 votes
|
|
64% | ||
|
30 votes
|
|
36% | ||
This has to be the dumbest idea I've seen floated out of the GOP in the last year, but they've done it. They've gone with a VP that's way worse than Romney and now they think they've got a chance in hell.
See you in four years, guys.
EDIT: New data has emerged from FOX NEWS about the RYAN budget plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-bu...
"Ryan's proposal calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35
percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax
brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
See you in four years, guys.
EDIT: New data has emerged from FOX NEWS about the RYAN budget plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-bu...
"Ryan's proposal calls for cutting the corporate tax rate from 35
percent to 25 percent. It would implement two individual income tax
brackets -- 10 percent and 25 percent.
While claims that Ryan is slashing the budget are questionable, there
are studies to back up claims that the Republicans' tax plans benefit
the wealthy more than others.
A June study from the Joint Economic Committee -- which is chaired by
a Democrat -- claims middle-class married couples could pay at least an
extra $1,300 under Ryan's plan, while those earning more than $1
million a year could see a nearly $290,000 cut.
According to an Aug. 1 study released by the Tax Policy Center,
Romney's tax plan would also include cuts that "predominantly favor
upper-income taxpayers."
It projected taxpayers making more than $1 million would see tax cuts
averaging $175,000. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 would see
an average tax cut of $1,800. And those making under $30,000 would see
an average increase of $130, according to the report."
and every push to 'stimulate' is wrong. Japan has been 'stimulating' for 2 decades now. when will they see recovery?
lower the amount of money? the gov't has spent $7 TRILLION in 'stimulatory' deficits since the bust. exactly HOW MUCH would it take for us to deficit spend ourselves to prosperity?
this recovery is the most anemic on record. we've been 40+ months at 8+% unemployment. U6 is at 15%. GDP growth was last reported at 1.5%. your vaunted CBO is expecting our next recession to 'begin' in March 2013, but i need someone to explain to me how this thing we've been in hasn't been a continuation of the bust . please don't try. its WAY above your pay grade... perhaps it sucks this bad simply because he and the democrats can't find their ass with either hand?
yep. welcome to the capital strike. seems that its news to you. that's why is called a 'capital strike'. your political masters have made the situation so bad, the people WITH capital don't want to risk it in this economy.
one more news flash for you. capital's 'purpose' is not to create jobs. jobs can certainly be spun off that, but creating more wealth is its goal...
yes. that's right. jobs are a SIDE EFFECT of capital creation, promotion and preservation.
is that a hard concept for you?
More importantly, it does virtually nothing to raise enough revenue. Current budget deficit's, thanks to obama, are in the trillions. Taxing the rich even more than they already are un-fairly taxed does nothing in regard to a solution.
It does raise revenue, though. And, it offsets having to tax the middle class any more than they are taxed, just so they can keep paying through the nose when the rich are paying some of the lowest taxes in decades and not letting those Reagan economics kick in. They're just shipping their money overseas and not using it to create jobs in America.
So, let them pay a tax increase. They've been enjoying the spoils of American labor for too long.
The only thing that can be proven on the economy is that the last four years have been the worst economic policies in our nations history, which has led to the worst recovery after a recession in 70 years. That can only be led, factually, on one of two possible options....the obama Depression or the policies that have become known as Blame and Shame.
Lower taxes on companies and the folks....revenues to the government go up.......
I'm only calculating the raise based on the 100 percent number; not based on what the 35 percent number was and adding anything.
50 percent is 25 percentage points above 25 percent of that same number.
I'm not sure what's so hard to get.
The tax is moving from 35 percent to 39 percent. That's 4 percentage points up. That's it.
You want to turn it into something more drastic, but if it was so drastic, how come there were no complaints from the right when they were allowed to get such a tax decrease before? Their free ride is over. Get used to it.
They blame the poor for entitlement issues, and here they are sitting on all the money they, by rights, should be paying in taxes. 14 percent taxes, while the middle class are going nuts trying to pay their 18 to 20 percent? Why should that happen?
Can the rich not afford it? BS. They've seen the highest profits ever under an Obama administration. Now, it's time to give back to the community.
What the difference between the old and new amount? 39-35 = 4.
Divide the difference (4) by amount you are starting from (35) and that is the % increase.
Answer is 11.4%
There is no way we can continue this conversation until you prove you understand basic math concepts. Do you understand?
I'm talking about one, and you harp on the other.
You're putting a spin on the number, but fail to remember that 11.4 number is the same amount THAT TAXES FELL BY years ago.
I'm just saying that since the rich have profited so much and continue to do such, they should go back to their old tax rate.
You seem to think that's horrible, but a in the world where an 11.4 percent RAISE of taxes moves it from 35 percent to 39 percent, that 39 percent being what they were paying when they had less money, I'm not inclined to believe that it's a big problem for the rich to pay out.
What you don't understand about this is incredible. Should I teach a class?
revenues will drop. there is no benefit to anyone AND the gov't gets less money...
should i explain how you can plot marginal tax rates versus gov't revenue and how there are basically three regions on that plot. the first region is where increasing tax revenue INCREASES gov't revenue? that implies that the tax rate is too low and that increased taxes are not negatively effecting the private sector. there's a second region where increasing taxes, further, makes no change in gov't tax revenue. that implies that the tax burden on the private sector is probably about where you want to keep it. then there's the third region where increasing marginal tax rate DECREASES gov't tax revenue. that region of the plot implies that tax rates are too high and the private sector is suffering under that burden.
if you draw it out, the curve looks like an upside down u.
its called the Laffer Curve.
when JFK cut the marginal tax rates from Eisenhower's 91% to 70% (and lower the other rates commensurately), tax revenue increased. when Bush cut taxes by 10% across the board, HIS revenues went up, too. one could make th argument that Clinton could have cut taxes, too, saw an increase in revenue, and along with Congressional republican sound fiscal policy, could have pulled off what the democrats truly fear. a solid example of trickle down econ...
should i explain how you can plot marginal tax rates versus gov't revenue and how there are basically three regions on that plot. the first region is where increasing tax revenue INCREASES gov't revenue? that implies that the tax rate is too low and that increased taxes are not negatively effecting the private sector. there's a second region where increasing taxes, further, makes no change in gov't tax revenue. that implies that the tax burden on the private sector is probably about where you want to keep it. then there's the third region where increasing marginal tax rate DECREASES gov't tax revenue. that region of the plot implies that tax rates are too high and the private sector is suffering under that burden.
if you draw it out, the curve looks like an upside down u.
its called the Laffer Curve.
when JFK cut the marginal tax rates from Eisenhower's 91% to 70% (and lower the other rates commensurately), tax revenue increased. when Bush cut taxes by 10% across the board, HIS revenues went up, too. one could make th argument that Clinton could have cut taxes, too, saw an increase in revenue, and along with Congressional republican sound fiscal policy, could have pulled off what the democrats truly fear. a solid example of trickle down economics.
anyway, the Bush cuts suggest that we are on the left cusp of the curve.
if Obama survives and goes on a tax rate increase tear, it'll do the same thing that happened when FDR did it. push us back into recession. and raising taxes is all Obama talks about...
its that same mentality that SOME people think that $4.99 is a better deal than $5.00.
EVERYONE got a 10% marginal rate cut. NOT JUST the rich.
its no 'free ride' for the rich. they're paying most of the freight already.
Romney paid an effective rate of 14% because most of his income was in capital gains. for those that pay a marginal rate of 35%, their effective rate is 29%. your average taxpayer pays a whopping 11%. you're 'poor' pay 0%.
corporations have seen high profits by laying off and increasing productivity. and they are sitting on it because Obama is in the process of wrecking our economy and, ultimately, our ability to grow, and they won't volunteer to join that disaster.
take an economics course. read 'The Road to Serfdom.' see if you can spot your errors in belief AND understanding.
So, they aren't the job creators we're told they are when people make excuses for why they shouldn't be taxed more, now are they?
How I'm supposed to fall in line with the "trickle down" economic theory, when you've shown it doesn't work that way, is beyond me. But, you'll keep trying to prove that point, anyway.
I don't want to live in a world where the nation's wealth is being held up from employing those without work, simply because the rich are upset about political agendas. I would love to live in a world where people can get jobs despite whoever my boss likes in the white house.
Why shouldn't I want that?
If you look at the only presidents to bring the nation out of recession without the aid of war (JFK, RR, and GW) they all lowered taxes and lowered government spending. Those are the ONLY strategies that work to grow the economy.
Plus, look at the last four years. Growing government, corruption, wasteful spending and cronyism has gotten us what? We have less net jobs now than we did before the Dem led financial crisis.
Did that answer your question?
What you don't understand is that when taxes were lowered, none of what you claim will happen DID happen. So, your theory didn't work in practice. Enjoy it. You tried it and it failed. Bush tried it and it didn't work. Next.
If you do look at the last 4 years, you see incredible job growth, smaller government, the lowest spending increase in the last 40-plus years, at least, and 300k less less jobs than when Obama took over.
Guess where they are missing from? Not the private sector.
Complain all you want, but we have more private sector jobs NET than when Obama took over. It's factual.
Your NET argument is only applicable, because of state governments ruining unions. Guess who most of them were? GOP nutjobs? Yep.
Your posts are so delusional that one point of false information is all I can take at a time. Prove what you say in the comment above with facts.....ready....GO!
the reality is that we can't keep doing what (or not doing) what Obama and the democrats HAVE been doing.
What a joke these guys are hey Beav? We may be in the minority and these idiots may be in the majority, which means we might be going off the edge of the cliff.
Women are NOT equal to men.
Women's purpose is to be pregnant as often as men can get them pregnant.
Rape IS God's will.
The poor are NOT as worthy of ANYTHING as the rich are, otherwise they'd be rich.
Making the rich richer will help the poor.
The sick deserve to be sick.
The sick do not deserve any more healthcare than they can pay for in cash.
That's a start. You seem to have guts, so go ahead and say these things.
The one of obama/Biden who have led us to the greatest increase in spending in our nations history while only achieving corruption and failed "green" energy programs?
obama is spending an incredible more amount than being taken in. Do you know the meaning of responsibility? If you do you'll realize how silly your question was, if not, reference the dictionary, then "Greece financial crisis" online.
People like you amaze me. Do you spend 200% more money than you make?
The 1950s through early 1960s, right?
Now here’s some reality for ya:
Taxing the rich more works. That’s history.
Raising taxes from 35-39% raises a mere 8 days of interest on the debt. How does that resolve anything?
Over 90%. Ninety. Percent.
Sorry. That’s not opinion. That’s history. Cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn’t work. Trickle-down is voodoo economics (remember who came up with that term? George H. W. Bush, on April 10, 1980, when debating Reagan for the GOP nomination, that’s who!).
Taxing the rich is even Biblical . Endorsed by (and even commanded by) God Himself! That and full-cycle proto-Keynesian economics is what Pharaoh’s dream that God sent to him, which Joseph interpreted, is what made Egypt so vastly wealthy and powerful, able to profit off the seven years of plenty and famine that left all surrounding nations in Egypt’s debt. Read the entire last third or so of the Book of Genesis (starting with Joseph being sold into slavery) if you don’t believe me.
And yes, it was compulsory taxation . Joseph as Prime Minister of Egypt did not nicely ask the wealthy landowners to voluntarily donate to the storage during the years of plenty. He confiscated it. By force .
See also the first seven verses of Romans Chapter 13.
Modern right-wing “Christianity” is none other than the False Prophet of...
Over 90%. Ninety. Percent.
Sorry. That’s not opinion. That’s history. Cutting taxes on the wealthy doesn’t work. Trickle-down is voodoo economics (remember who came up with that term? George H. W. Bush, on April 10, 1980, when debating Reagan for the GOP nomination, that’s who!).
Taxing the rich is even Biblical. Endorsed by (and even commanded by) God Himself! That and full-cycle proto-Keynesian economics is what Pharaoh’s dream that God sent to him, which Joseph interpreted, is what made Egypt so vastly wealthy and powerful, able to profit off the seven years of plenty and famine that left all surrounding nations in Egypt’s debt. Read the entire last third or so of the Book of Genesis (starting with Joseph being sold into slavery) if you don’t believe me.
And yes, it was compulsory taxation. Joseph as Prime Minister of Egypt did not nicely ask the wealthy landowners to voluntarily donate to the storage during the years of plenty. He confiscated it. By force.
See also the first seven verses of Romans Chapter 13.
Modern right-wing “Christianity” is none other than the False Prophet of Revelation, deceiving people into worshiping the Beast (corporations as a concept, aka Corporate Personhood). I got this from a man who claims to be nothing more nor less than one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation, namely, “Bands.”