I understand your argument and don't disagree on your explanation. Unfortunately all taxes are individual and hence must be packaged that way.
Will the Bush Tax Cuts be Extended?
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
I understand your argument and don't disagree on your explanation. Unfortunately all taxes are individual and hence must be packaged that way.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
This is a good interesting clip from Obama today.
https://www.cnn.com/video/#
One thing he said that was interesting (in another video on cnn) he said, "I know that the American people don't need any convincing about the tax cuts for the wealthy. But the Republicans are the ones that need to be convinced. And if anyone has any ideas how to convince them, I'm all ears."
It's amazing to me that a politician has gone this far, to the White House, without learning the art of propaganda.
If Bush and Rove were in the white house today, they'd fight and destroy the Democrats. They'd villainize them until they blinked.
Instead, the President blinked, instead of fought. As a result, he turned his own party against each other.
Now Demos in Congress are either:
A. Going to go against their own campaign promises and the desires of the majority of Americans to agree w/the other party.
B. Going to further isolate themselves from the political parties by agreeing w/the American people and voting against this extension. This opens them up to further criticism down the line when they seek reelection for not wanting to give unemployment benefits. That they were preferring to play politics instead of putting the American people first.
What might irritate me most is how pathetic the Democrats are. Republicans deserve it in 2012. In the past 2 years they've been attacking nonstop over the Internet, tv, and radio. The Democrats have no spine. They don't fight. They're so weak with their propaganda. They're the victims, all the time. While the Republicans are always much more aggressive.
https://www.cnn.com/video/#
One thing he said that was interesting (in another video on cnn) he said, "I know that the American people don't need any convincing about the tax cuts for the wealthy. But the Republicans are the ones that need to be convinced. And if anyone has any ideas how to convince them, I'm all ears."
It's amazing to me that a politician has gone this far, to the White House, without learning the art of propaganda.
If Bush and Rove were in the white house today, they'd fight and destroy the Democrats. They'd villainize them until they blinked.
Instead, the President blinked, instead of fought. As a result, he turned his own party against each other.
Now Demos in Congress are either:
A. Going to go against their own campaign promises and the desires of the majority of Americans to agree w/the other party.
B. Going to further isolate themselves from the political parties by agreeing w/the American people and voting against this extension. This opens them up to further criticism down the line when they seek reelection for not wanting to give unemployment benefits. That they were preferring to play politics instead of putting the American people first.
What might irritate me most is how pathetic the Democrats are. Republicans deserve it in 2012. In the past 2 years they've been attacking nonstop over the Internet, tv, and radio. The Democrats have no spine. They don't fight. They're so weak with their propaganda. They're the victims, all the time. While the Republicans are always much more aggressive.
Kicky,
The big screw up was the failure to seize the day on a once in a generation, the stars are perfectly aligned, for a massive coast to coast infastructure project financed at the cheapest 30 year borrowing costs since the 50's. The ROI from now to infinity would have been off the charts.
The big screw up was the failure to seize the day on a once in a generation, the stars are perfectly aligned, for a massive coast to coast infastructure project financed at the cheapest 30 year borrowing costs since the 50's. The ROI from now to infinity would have been off the charts.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I would hate to be a Demo right now. No matter how they vote, they're going to be killed....
Actually, if Obama were a stock, I would start buying. Two years is an eternity in politics. I would still put him above 50% for a second term.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
\
Exactly.
Or even better...bringing nuclear power to the forefront of energy conundrum. Granted, this doesn't solve the issues inherent with thermodynamics, but its definitely a start in the right direction.
I completely and utterly disagree. Obama will go down as the president that spurred America's lost decade.
As both a Keynesian and someone with half a brain I obviously agree.
Spurred is a bit strong. Obama isn't a but-for cause. There was a whole decade preceding him that created a bunch of these problems.
The "whose fault is it" will be fought about for decades to come.
At at the very least two decades of garbage upon garbage decision making...decisions made from both sides of the aisle. They're ALL to blame. And don't get me wrong, Im not saying that Obama had anything to do with the current economic situation when he walked into office that first day, but he continued the same failed policies of the previous administrations. He stuck with the smartest guys in the room. Whether an individual, corporation or government does not matter. The mathematics always conquers. Always. At some point, servicing the debt, if the proverbial can is kicked down the road, will always lead to systemic failure if not dealt with.
Agree totally with the nuclear power comment.
Here is the thing:
The outlier bet is a much stronger economy two years from now. These side shows are fun, but at the end of the day, every single presidential election depends on the economy. Period, end of story. Obama has timing, regression to the mean in the economic data, and history on his side. That and I believe we are potentially on the cusp of a significant multi-year rally in the US Dollar. Reverse engineer the collateral effects of a rising US Dollar and it does not bode well for the tea party or the republicans.
What you're asking for is not a tax cut. It is a hand out. Therein lies the problem and political pressure. Reducing taxes to zero is one thing (and badly misguided IMO), taking taxes further into negative territory is another. Policies that don't give a hand out for nothing are much more palatable (i.e. having a true safety net rather than an all encompassing social security system).
Have you followed Frances decade long dabbling in the technology...Almost makes you want to be French.
Anyway, a rally in the dollar huh? **** man, I dont understand how you can see that happening. I think we're so close to the point of no return it's scary. It's either take the haircut now or lose your head in the near future..
Lunch time.
Don't say this too loud. The inflationistas are listening ya know.
I hope these work:
Which one would you own for the next 5 to 10 years:
https://www.mrci.com/pdf/dx.pdf
https://www.mrci.com/pdf/gc.pdf
This tax-cuts for the rich debate is always over-simplified and narrowly focused on the wealth divide. We tend to forget that "the rich" are "the owners", while "the poor" own little to nothing and are generally in debt to "the rich". It's a resources problem. What progressives really want is for "the rich" to own less and "the poor" to own more. So why is it we're not only not talking in these terms, but we craft policy after policy that encourages "the poor" to consume more (from "the rich") and go into deeper debt (to "the rich"). The outcome from the stimuli, extended unemployment benefits, universal social security, and various housing initiatives is quite predictable.
It seems policies that encourages "the poor" to save more and "the rich" to spend their wealth would be much more effective and politically acceptable than a highly progressive tax policy.
It seems policies that encourages "the poor" to save more and "the rich" to spend their wealth would be much more effective and politically acceptable than a highly progressive tax policy.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
That dollar chart is awful. It basically says that if I didn't get myself in dollars in the late 90's and sell in the early 0's, I probably lost my ***.
I understand the inverse mentality, but come on, just based on the charts? No way in hell I would jump in the dollar. I would either buy gold or do nothing.
Now, a short term trade while the Euro is having problems - maybe.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I sent you a PM.
???
The 1913 income tax (the first US income tax under the 16th amendment) applied to the first dollar of income everyone in America earned. There were functionally zero deductions.
In 1913 the United States was barely a world power, much less a world superpower. Income taxes became higher and more steeply graduated very quickly after US entry in WWI. Top marginal rates by 1917 were 67% and 77% by 1918.
You can look at all historical marginal tax rates and triggering levels at https://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Periods of war used to be times of real sacrifice for Americans. During WWII top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% once you got a level equivalent to about $2.4 million/yr in today's dollars. That level of patriotism is unimaginable today.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
Why do you act like that train has passed? If the FED can loan trillions of dollars to zombie banks, they can loan the same amount to infrastructure if they wanted to. Today, tomorrow, whenever. So why don't they?
False. Check the link.
https://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
500k was the trigger for the top tax bracket at the time, which clocked in at 7%. But a 1% tax applied to every dollar made between $0 and $20,000.