19 thoughts on ““We’d Be Marching On The White House””
Haven’t you heard? All the cool kids are marching on Wall Street. Of course, it’s the weekend so there’s even less point than usual non-government protest.
Yes Trent, I finally read that story last night. Really? 3 years of Obama, and stupid youths (I’m sure all former Truthers) are going to try and convince us that it’s “The Evil Corporations!” UAW just announced a deal in which union employees either get a $5,000 bonus or if they are a new higher, a 15% increase in pay; but it is “The Evil Corporations!” Obama just announced a plan to raise $1.5 Trillion in new taxes, which is over the $450 Billion announced in his jobs plan, but it is “The Evil Corporations!”
Good luck with that.
This administration is awful. Announcing a tax increase and trying to flash the class warfare card when the GOP rightly refuses to play ball isn’t going to work. Cut spending, reduce the tax burden, and massively deregulate.
Obama’s plan is based on the discredit notion of static analysis. He’s stupid enough to believe that a sharp increase in capital gains tax will automatically translate into additional revenue. They expect people will not change their behavior or investment strategies as a result of the tax increases. To see the fallacy of static analysis, look at what happened when Congress passed and Clinton signed capital gains tax rate reductions back in the 1990s. The revenue collected from capital gains taxes soared with the lower rates. By what magical thinking can anyone believe that the reverse won’t happen?
Stupid is as stupid does. Obama is daily proving his willful stupidity.
Obama’s plan is based on the discredit notion of static analysis.
It’s scored the same way Ryan’s plan is scored, using the same rules, by the same people. If you’ve got a better system — one that more reliably forecasts the impact of policy changes — feel free to publish it and prove that it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working the refs.
look at what happened when Congress passed and Clinton signed capital gains tax rate reductions back in the 1990s. The revenue collected from capital gains taxes soared with the lower rates.
Clinton raised income tax rates, and income tax revenue soared as well. A booming economy makes any policy look better.
A booming economy makes any policy look better.
So why isn’t Obama lighting that fuse?
It’s scored the same way Ryan’s plan is scored, using the same rules, by the same people. If you’ve got a better system — one that more reliably forecasts the impact of policy changes — feel free to publish it and prove that it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working the refs.
History has shown that static analysis if fatally flawed. It simply doesn’t work. As Einsteain and other stated, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.
Tax rate reductions have been proven to stimulate the economy, resulting in tax revenue increases. This is exactly the opposite of what static analysis predicts. Capital tax rate reductions stimulate investment and encouage people to cash in on their profits. Only a fool would think that raising capital gains tax rates won’t have the opposite effect as tax rate reductions. Only a fool would believe that static analysis provides an accurate method for predicting the results of a change in tax rates.
Clinton raised income tax rates, and income tax revenue soared as well.
If you’re talking about the tax rate increases the Democrats who controlled Congress and Clinton enacted in 1993 (not a single Republican voted for them), you’re forgetting that the economy didn’t boom immediately afterwards nor did the revenues collected increase. The economy and market really lit off in 1995 after Republicans won control of Congress. Clinton signed a significant capital tax rate reduction (passed by the Republican-controlled Congress) and the revenues surged.
Part of the adsurdity of previous capital gains taxes was that they weren’t indexed to inflation. The morons treated increases that simply kept pace with inflation as gains. It’s just like the Alternative Minimum Tax. Bach in the 1960s, about 150 wealthy people took advantage of the tax code’s deductions and ended up not having to pay any taxes. The class warriors bowels got in an uproar so they passed the AMT. They failed to index it to inflation and now it impacts millions of people. When the Progressives pushed the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax, they promised it would only impact “the rich.” How did that work out for everyone?
When class warriors talk about taxing “the rich” (especially when they refuse to define the meaning of the term), watch your wallet. It’s virtually certain that before too long, you’ll find yourself counted among “the rich.”
Well Jim, perhaps you can provide us an example of scored legislation that, once passed, actually followed the predicted score. You know, instead of “unexpectedly” coming up with a different result. There are plenty of models out there already published. Larry doesn’t need to provide one. OMB and CBO simply need to use them, which would probably require getting rid of the dead wood that refuses to do so. See you in 2012.
I think that what is going on politically is so revealing of people’s character and intelligence that I know that I will be looking for some economically intelligent providers of the some of the services I purchase. I already fired my health insurance agent. She was spouting this stuff and I listened dumbfounded that she could be so stupid. I didn’t want her near my money. God know what she would rationalize next.
O does not know how to create value. He is a destroyer and foments hatred and divisions among men in order to destroy. Now you know everything you need to know about Obama. He’s a bad human being.
Anytime you hear a politician talk about taxing “the rich”, take a good look at this graphic:
It shows the total income available to be taxed. I found it at the Wall Street Journal a few months ago. Hint: “The rich” are not where the money is.
Careful rickl, what you call Middle Class, Democrats will call rich. It’s what happens when you play their game of class warfare. They make the definition, because it’s their game.
That is a very interesting chart.
Trent Waddington Says:
“Haven’t you heard? All the cool kids are marching on Wall Street. Of course, it’s the weekend so there’s even less point than usual non-government protest.”
The election will come down to one question which occurred to me today:
Would you rather have a job or a black President?
I found the chart to be facinating as well. I tried to add up all of the income and came up with about 5.5 trillion. If that is true, then our federal budget is very nearly to the point of 100 percent taxation at all income levels in order to meet current expenditures with just a hair left over to try and reduce the deficit.
Finally pulling their noses out of Obama’s ass*, the Associated Press fact checked Obama’s speech and found it wanting. Imagine my surprise.
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said Monday. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
The rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it,” Obama said. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”
Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Obama lied, the economy died.
*Most of the Press has had their heads so far up Obama’s ass that if the man farted, he’d blow out all their eardrums.
It was interesting watching Diane Sawyer’s coverage of the Buffet Tax. There was no examination of any of the numbers just blindly reporting the internet meme that rich people pay less than 15% in taxes. And they wonder why traditional news is failing.
rickl, a minor criticism: That’s adjusted gross taxable income. Income before tax code adjustments would be of interest. (Taxes paid) – (government benefits received) on the same scale would be a useful comparison.
Haven’t you heard? All the cool kids are marching on Wall Street. Of course, it’s the weekend so there’s even less point than usual non-government protest.
Yes Trent, I finally read that story last night. Really? 3 years of Obama, and stupid youths (I’m sure all former Truthers) are going to try and convince us that it’s “The Evil Corporations!” UAW just announced a deal in which union employees either get a $5,000 bonus or if they are a new higher, a 15% increase in pay; but it is “The Evil Corporations!” Obama just announced a plan to raise $1.5 Trillion in new taxes, which is over the $450 Billion announced in his jobs plan, but it is “The Evil Corporations!”
Good luck with that.
This administration is awful. Announcing a tax increase and trying to flash the class warfare card when the GOP rightly refuses to play ball isn’t going to work. Cut spending, reduce the tax burden, and massively deregulate.
Obama’s plan is based on the discredit notion of static analysis. He’s stupid enough to believe that a sharp increase in capital gains tax will automatically translate into additional revenue. They expect people will not change their behavior or investment strategies as a result of the tax increases. To see the fallacy of static analysis, look at what happened when Congress passed and Clinton signed capital gains tax rate reductions back in the 1990s. The revenue collected from capital gains taxes soared with the lower rates. By what magical thinking can anyone believe that the reverse won’t happen?
Stupid is as stupid does. Obama is daily proving his willful stupidity.
Obama’s plan is based on the discredit notion of static analysis.
It’s scored the same way Ryan’s plan is scored, using the same rules, by the same people. If you’ve got a better system — one that more reliably forecasts the impact of policy changes — feel free to publish it and prove that it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working the refs.
look at what happened when Congress passed and Clinton signed capital gains tax rate reductions back in the 1990s. The revenue collected from capital gains taxes soared with the lower rates.
Clinton raised income tax rates, and income tax revenue soared as well. A booming economy makes any policy look better.
A booming economy makes any policy look better.
So why isn’t Obama lighting that fuse?
It’s scored the same way Ryan’s plan is scored, using the same rules, by the same people. If you’ve got a better system — one that more reliably forecasts the impact of policy changes — feel free to publish it and prove that it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working the refs.
History has shown that static analysis if fatally flawed. It simply doesn’t work. As Einsteain and other stated, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.
Tax rate reductions have been proven to stimulate the economy, resulting in tax revenue increases. This is exactly the opposite of what static analysis predicts. Capital tax rate reductions stimulate investment and encouage people to cash in on their profits. Only a fool would think that raising capital gains tax rates won’t have the opposite effect as tax rate reductions. Only a fool would believe that static analysis provides an accurate method for predicting the results of a change in tax rates.
Clinton raised income tax rates, and income tax revenue soared as well.
If you’re talking about the tax rate increases the Democrats who controlled Congress and Clinton enacted in 1993 (not a single Republican voted for them), you’re forgetting that the economy didn’t boom immediately afterwards nor did the revenues collected increase. The economy and market really lit off in 1995 after Republicans won control of Congress. Clinton signed a significant capital tax rate reduction (passed by the Republican-controlled Congress) and the revenues surged.
Part of the adsurdity of previous capital gains taxes was that they weren’t indexed to inflation. The morons treated increases that simply kept pace with inflation as gains. It’s just like the Alternative Minimum Tax. Bach in the 1960s, about 150 wealthy people took advantage of the tax code’s deductions and ended up not having to pay any taxes. The class warriors bowels got in an uproar so they passed the AMT. They failed to index it to inflation and now it impacts millions of people. When the Progressives pushed the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax, they promised it would only impact “the rich.” How did that work out for everyone?
When class warriors talk about taxing “the rich” (especially when they refuse to define the meaning of the term), watch your wallet. It’s virtually certain that before too long, you’ll find yourself counted among “the rich.”
Well Jim, perhaps you can provide us an example of scored legislation that, once passed, actually followed the predicted score. You know, instead of “unexpectedly” coming up with a different result. There are plenty of models out there already published. Larry doesn’t need to provide one. OMB and CBO simply need to use them, which would probably require getting rid of the dead wood that refuses to do so. See you in 2012.
I think that what is going on politically is so revealing of people’s character and intelligence that I know that I will be looking for some economically intelligent providers of the some of the services I purchase. I already fired my health insurance agent. She was spouting this stuff and I listened dumbfounded that she could be so stupid. I didn’t want her near my money. God know what she would rationalize next.
O does not know how to create value. He is a destroyer and foments hatred and divisions among men in order to destroy. Now you know everything you need to know about Obama. He’s a bad human being.
Anytime you hear a politician talk about taxing “the rich”, take a good look at this graphic:
The Middle Class Tax Target
It shows the total income available to be taxed. I found it at the Wall Street Journal a few months ago. Hint: “The rich” are not where the money is.
Careful rickl, what you call Middle Class, Democrats will call rich. It’s what happens when you play their game of class warfare. They make the definition, because it’s their game.
That is a very interesting chart.
Trent Waddington Says:
“Haven’t you heard? All the cool kids are marching on Wall Street. Of course, it’s the weekend so there’s even less point than usual non-government protest.”
Oh yes the Day of Rage*
*non-violent rage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZkdvA2W5MI&feature=player_embedded
The election will come down to one question which occurred to me today:
Would you rather have a job or a black President?
I found the chart to be facinating as well. I tried to add up all of the income and came up with about 5.5 trillion. If that is true, then our federal budget is very nearly to the point of 100 percent taxation at all income levels in order to meet current expenditures with just a hair left over to try and reduce the deficit.
Finally pulling their noses out of Obama’s ass*, the Associated Press fact checked Obama’s speech and found it wanting. Imagine my surprise.
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said Monday. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the “Buffett rule,” named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
The rule says, “People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.”
“Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it,” Obama said. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.”
Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Obama lied, the economy died.
*Most of the Press has had their heads so far up Obama’s ass that if the man farted, he’d blow out all their eardrums.
It was interesting watching Diane Sawyer’s coverage of the Buffet Tax. There was no examination of any of the numbers just blindly reporting the internet meme that rich people pay less than 15% in taxes. And they wonder why traditional news is failing.
rickl, a minor criticism: That’s adjusted gross taxable income. Income before tax code adjustments would be of interest. (Taxes paid) – (government benefits received) on the same scale would be a useful comparison.