Google Groups unterstützt keine neuen Usenet-Beiträge oder ‑Abos mehr. Bisherige Inhalte sind weiterhin sichtbar.
Schließen
Obamanomics: The Best Solution
1 Aufruf
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht
John Manning
19.11.2012, 23:59:0019.11.12
an
During last Wednesday’s news conference, President Obama offered
his plan for dealing with the looming fiscal cliff and expiring tax
cuts. While the President claims he desires to work with Congress
to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way, he was
clear that he intends to hold the middle class hostage in order to
achieve his goal of increasing taxes on more successful Americans.
How is the President doing this? By announcing that Congress must
either bow to his agenda or send all Americans a higher tax bill.
While Obama was busily pushing his ultimatum, he seems to have not
fully considered all the options on the table. He made the
appearance of wanting discussion and being open to ideas, but in
the same breath made it clear that he is unwilling to compromise.
He offered only two choices. First, accept his plan to prevent the
tax hikes on only the first $250,000 of income. The only
alternative offered is to let everyone’s taxes increase if Congress
refuses to acquiesce to this plan.
Under option one, Obama gets to make good on his class warfare
rhetoric by raising taxes on the wealthy, sanitized in the
terminology of “paying their fair share.” However, what the
President fails to inform Americans is that the wealthy already
fund most of government. According to the Internal Revenue Service,
while individuals in the top 5% of income-earners made 32% of all
income in the United States in 2009, they also paid nearly 59% of
all individual income taxes.
The President seems to think that taxing higher income individuals
will solve the problem with the Federal Government’s budget; he can
fix the massive spending by bringing in more revenue. But he fails
to face the reality that an extreme 100% tax on higher income
individuals could not fund the government for even 6 months. Once
the wealthy have been taxed heavily, the only option is to hit
everyone else with higher taxes also.
Absolutely no one wants option two, and the President believes that
the threat of across-the-board tax increases will cow Congress into
doing his bidding. President Obama himself said that he does not
want this scenario, acknowledging that increased taxes will strike
a blow to a still-weak economy. In extending the tax cuts in 2010
the President stated, “It [raising taxes] would have been a blow to
our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession.”
Americans do not need the economic instability that accompanies
higher taxes. While the President seems to realize that higher
taxes on everyone will harm the economy, he seems unaware that a
higher tax on the wealthy will also likely harm our fragile economy.
Continues:
http://townhall.com/columnists/timphillips/2012/11/19/the_best_solu
tion
Learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Libya: The Real Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrVUYOooRQ
his plan for dealing with the looming fiscal cliff and expiring tax
cuts. While the President claims he desires to work with Congress
to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way, he was
clear that he intends to hold the middle class hostage in order to
achieve his goal of increasing taxes on more successful Americans.
How is the President doing this? By announcing that Congress must
either bow to his agenda or send all Americans a higher tax bill.
While Obama was busily pushing his ultimatum, he seems to have not
fully considered all the options on the table. He made the
appearance of wanting discussion and being open to ideas, but in
the same breath made it clear that he is unwilling to compromise.
He offered only two choices. First, accept his plan to prevent the
tax hikes on only the first $250,000 of income. The only
alternative offered is to let everyone’s taxes increase if Congress
refuses to acquiesce to this plan.
Under option one, Obama gets to make good on his class warfare
rhetoric by raising taxes on the wealthy, sanitized in the
terminology of “paying their fair share.” However, what the
President fails to inform Americans is that the wealthy already
fund most of government. According to the Internal Revenue Service,
while individuals in the top 5% of income-earners made 32% of all
income in the United States in 2009, they also paid nearly 59% of
all individual income taxes.
The President seems to think that taxing higher income individuals
will solve the problem with the Federal Government’s budget; he can
fix the massive spending by bringing in more revenue. But he fails
to face the reality that an extreme 100% tax on higher income
individuals could not fund the government for even 6 months. Once
the wealthy have been taxed heavily, the only option is to hit
everyone else with higher taxes also.
Absolutely no one wants option two, and the President believes that
the threat of across-the-board tax increases will cow Congress into
doing his bidding. President Obama himself said that he does not
want this scenario, acknowledging that increased taxes will strike
a blow to a still-weak economy. In extending the tax cuts in 2010
the President stated, “It [raising taxes] would have been a blow to
our economy just as we’re climbing out of a devastating recession.”
Americans do not need the economic instability that accompanies
higher taxes. While the President seems to realize that higher
taxes on everyone will harm the economy, he seems unaware that a
higher tax on the wealthy will also likely harm our fragile economy.
Continues:
http://townhall.com/columnists/timphillips/2012/11/19/the_best_solu
tion
Learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood:
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Libya: The Real Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrVUYOooRQ
emoneyjoe
20.11.2012, 00:48:5520.11.12
an
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:59:00 +0100, John Manning <conta...@126.com>
wrote:
>During last Wednesday? news conference, President Obama offered
>our economy just as we?e climbing out of a devastating recession.?
on higher income people will hurt the economy,
high earnings most likely will not diminish the
amount of money available for capital
investment.
Doesn't anybody know the difference
between wealthy and high earners?
wrote:
>During last Wednesday? news conference, President Obama offered
>his plan for dealing with the looming fiscal cliff and expiring tax
>cuts. While the President claims he desires to work with Congress
>to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way, he was
>clear that he intends to hold the middle class hostage in order to
>achieve his goal of increasing taxes on more successful Americans.
>
>How is the President doing this? By announcing that Congress must
>either bow to his agenda or send all Americans a higher tax bill.
>
>While Obama was busily pushing his ultimatum, he seems to have not
>fully considered all the options on the table. He made the
>appearance of wanting discussion and being open to ideas, but in
>the same breath made it clear that he is unwilling to compromise.
>He offered only two choices. First, accept his plan to prevent the
>tax hikes on only the first $250,000 of income. The only
>alternative offered is to let everyone? taxes increase if Congress
>cuts. While the President claims he desires to work with Congress
>to reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way, he was
>clear that he intends to hold the middle class hostage in order to
>achieve his goal of increasing taxes on more successful Americans.
>
>How is the President doing this? By announcing that Congress must
>either bow to his agenda or send all Americans a higher tax bill.
>
>While Obama was busily pushing his ultimatum, he seems to have not
>fully considered all the options on the table. He made the
>appearance of wanting discussion and being open to ideas, but in
>the same breath made it clear that he is unwilling to compromise.
>He offered only two choices. First, accept his plan to prevent the
>tax hikes on only the first $250,000 of income. The only
>refuses to acquiesce to this plan.
>
>Under option one, Obama gets to make good on his class warfare
>rhetoric by raising taxes on the wealthy, sanitized in the
>terminology of ?aying their fair share.?However, what the
>
>Under option one, Obama gets to make good on his class warfare
>rhetoric by raising taxes on the wealthy, sanitized in the
>President fails to inform Americans is that the wealthy already
>fund most of government. According to the Internal Revenue Service,
>while individuals in the top 5% of income-earners made 32% of all
>income in the United States in 2009, they also paid nearly 59% of
>all individual income taxes.
>
>The President seems to think that taxing higher income individuals
>will solve the problem with the Federal Government? budget; he can
>fund most of government. According to the Internal Revenue Service,
>while individuals in the top 5% of income-earners made 32% of all
>income in the United States in 2009, they also paid nearly 59% of
>all individual income taxes.
>
>The President seems to think that taxing higher income individuals
>fix the massive spending by bringing in more revenue. But he fails
>to face the reality that an extreme 100% tax on higher income
>individuals could not fund the government for even 6 months. Once
>the wealthy have been taxed heavily, the only option is to hit
>everyone else with higher taxes also.
>
>Absolutely no one wants option two, and the President believes that
>the threat of across-the-board tax increases will cow Congress into
>doing his bidding. President Obama himself said that he does not
>want this scenario, acknowledging that increased taxes will strike
>a blow to a still-weak economy. In extending the tax cuts in 2010
>the President stated, ?t [raising taxes] would have been a blow to
>to face the reality that an extreme 100% tax on higher income
>individuals could not fund the government for even 6 months. Once
>the wealthy have been taxed heavily, the only option is to hit
>everyone else with higher taxes also.
>
>Absolutely no one wants option two, and the President believes that
>the threat of across-the-board tax increases will cow Congress into
>doing his bidding. President Obama himself said that he does not
>want this scenario, acknowledging that increased taxes will strike
>a blow to a still-weak economy. In extending the tax cuts in 2010
>our economy just as we?e climbing out of a devastating recession.?
>Americans do not need the economic instability that accompanies
>higher taxes. While the President seems to realize that higher
>taxes on everyone will harm the economy, he seems unaware that a
>higher tax on the wealthy will also likely harm our fragile economy.
>
>Continues:
>http://townhall.com/columnists/timphillips/2012/11/19/the_best_solu
>tion
>
>Learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood:
>http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
>
>Libya: The Real Story
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrVUYOooRQ
There is no reason to think a higher tax
>higher taxes. While the President seems to realize that higher
>taxes on everyone will harm the economy, he seems unaware that a
>higher tax on the wealthy will also likely harm our fragile economy.
>
>Continues:
>http://townhall.com/columnists/timphillips/2012/11/19/the_best_solu
>tion
>
>Learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood:
>http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
>
>Libya: The Real Story
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrVUYOooRQ
on higher income people will hurt the economy,
high earnings most likely will not diminish the
amount of money available for capital
investment.
Doesn't anybody know the difference
between wealthy and high earners?
Eddie Haskell
20.11.2012, 11:08:0220.11.12
an
"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:996ma8tfo87lnidna...@4ax.com...
higher-income Americans will hurt economic growth and lead to 710,000 fewer
jobs being created.
The study was commissioned by four business groups that are opposed to this
tax increase, which will go into effect Jan. 1 under current law. Those
groups include the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Independent Community Bankers of America and the S
Corporation Association.
This study should give these groups more ammunition in their fight to ward
off this tax hike. They have an uphill battle as far as public opinion is
concerned: A new Pew Research Center poll found that 44 percent of Americans
think raising taxes on households with more than $250,000 in income would
help the economy, while only 22 percent said it would hurt the economy.
About 900,000 business owners are in the top two income tax brackets, the
study found. Tax rates for these brackets are scheduled to increase next
year from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent,
respectively. But these taxpayers face other tax increases as well: higher
tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase in the 2.9 percent
Medicare tax to 3.8 percent for high-income taxpayers, a new 3.8 percent tax
on investment income; and the reinstatement of limits on itemized deductions
for wealthy Americans.
The combination of these tax hikes would increase the top individual income
tax rate on business income from 35 percent to 44.7 percent next year, the
study found.
Most small businesses are flow-through entities, where profits are taxed at
the individual owner. The study found that taxpayers in the top two brackets
earn more than $576 billion in flow-through business income, through S
corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies and sole
proprietorships.
Subjecting this business income to higher taxes is a bad idea if we want to
encourage economic growth, business groups argue.
"Americans would see fewer jobs and lower wages," said Brian Reardon,
executive director of the S Corporation Association.
Research shows a correlation between tax rates and hiring, said Robert
Carroll of Ernst & Young, co-author of the study.
Senate Democrats, however, are playing hardball on taxes, saying they won't
agree to extend lower tax rates for high-income Americans even if it that
refusal means taxes will go up for everyone else as well.
President Barack Obama contends that 97 percent of small businesses would be
spared higher taxes if Congress does what he wants and extends lower tax
rates for households making under $250,000.
But Denny Dennis, a senior research fellow at the NFIB Research Foundation,
contends the president's figure includes part-time businesses and other
marginal small businesses. He estimates that 15 percent of small businesses
that actually employ people would be hit with higher taxes if the top two
tax rates are increased.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48771227/Why_Raising_Taxes_on_the_Wealthy_Won_t_Work
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
20.11.2012, 11:09:2420.11.12
an
emoneyjoe
20.11.2012, 15:51:5720.11.12
an
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:08:02 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
wrote:
The url says wealthy, I was talking about
high earners, which I, you, and the article
know are the ones actually ever getting taxed.
My remarks are also based on the obvious
fact that more capital investment isn't needed
and won't do much with the demand created
by new products of which there are not many.
I think the theory that once a civilization
has reached a zenith, the economy slows,
which seems to be a theory which has never
been argued with any vigor, because that
eventuality has only happened a few times.
A tax hike on individuals earning $200k
and couples earning $250k would hurt their
ability to grow a fast growing business, but
there are not that many fast growing small
businesses, and this fact may explain the
differences between the conclusions
reached in the article and mine.
I suggest that congress give the
president all the rope he asks for
without endangering national
security, and actually hope it will
work, the health of the nation is
more important than the income
of a few people.
And the quicker the foolishness
of federal borrowing, increasing taxes,
and spending cuts in a slow or sluggish
economy becomes apparent, the better.
wrote:
high earners, which I, you, and the article
know are the ones actually ever getting taxed.
My remarks are also based on the obvious
fact that more capital investment isn't needed
and won't do much with the demand created
by new products of which there are not many.
I think the theory that once a civilization
has reached a zenith, the economy slows,
which seems to be a theory which has never
been argued with any vigor, because that
eventuality has only happened a few times.
A tax hike on individuals earning $200k
and couples earning $250k would hurt their
ability to grow a fast growing business, but
there are not that many fast growing small
businesses, and this fact may explain the
differences between the conclusions
reached in the article and mine.
I suggest that congress give the
president all the rope he asks for
without endangering national
security, and actually hope it will
work, the health of the nation is
more important than the income
of a few people.
And the quicker the foolishness
of federal borrowing, increasing taxes,
and spending cuts in a slow or sluggish
economy becomes apparent, the better.
emoneyjoe
20.11.2012, 15:53:4720.11.12
an
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:09:24 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
wrote:
I can't watch videos, my wireless is
too slow, but I will save it in case I ever
get the 4G I am paying for.
wrote:
too slow, but I will save it in case I ever
get the 4G I am paying for.
Eddie Haskell
20.11.2012, 16:08:0920.11.12
an
news:cdqna81bjmbhqhsuc...@4ax.com...
The stagnation we see today is the result of an anti-American,
anti-capitalist in the WH and as long as that's the case things will only
continue to deteriorate.
-Eddie Haskell
anti-capitalist in the WH and as long as that's the case things will only
continue to deteriorate.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
20.11.2012, 16:09:5120.11.12
an
news:8crna89ore0s9u224...@4ax.com...
Hussein's department of homeland security is obviously jamming the
frequency.
-Eddie Haskell
frequency.
-Eddie Haskell
emoneyjoe
20.11.2012, 20:02:0320.11.12
an
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:08:09 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
Actually, I think the stagnation began
way back toward the last couple of years
of Clinton, the last big new material to
hit the market had saturated the market,
and the abortions had caused less of
spending age people to start showing
up in the stats, 2000 was the start of
a pretty steep dip, but it didn't last long.
Faster computers became more
than adequate by 2005, and flat screen
TV prices were getting reasonable,
since then you may know of a big dollar
product, I don't know of any capable
of making much of a difference.
That, and the insanity of federal
borrowing 5 times previous usual
amounts are the things that made
me decide to take this nym.
way back toward the last couple of years
of Clinton, the last big new material to
hit the market had saturated the market,
and the abortions had caused less of
spending age people to start showing
up in the stats, 2000 was the start of
a pretty steep dip, but it didn't last long.
Faster computers became more
than adequate by 2005, and flat screen
TV prices were getting reasonable,
since then you may know of a big dollar
product, I don't know of any capable
of making much of a difference.
That, and the insanity of federal
borrowing 5 times previous usual
amounts are the things that made
me decide to take this nym.
emoneyjoe
20.11.2012, 20:08:1120.11.12
an
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:09:51 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
No, my wireless antenna is a 4G cell
on a water tower a block from my house
in a small town, and that may mean it
will be one of the last to be upgraded
from 1G to 4G by a company that
advertises nation-wide 4G.
I don't think the antenna itself has
to be upgraded, I think they are all
2.4 gigahertz, I am keeping my
fingers crossed, I like having the
4G "Hotspot" wireless-modem and
wireless router all in a case the size
of a cell phone that I can put in my
pocket and have internet anywhere
I go.
on a water tower a block from my house
in a small town, and that may mean it
will be one of the last to be upgraded
from 1G to 4G by a company that
advertises nation-wide 4G.
I don't think the antenna itself has
to be upgraded, I think they are all
2.4 gigahertz, I am keeping my
fingers crossed, I like having the
4G "Hotspot" wireless-modem and
wireless router all in a case the size
of a cell phone that I can put in my
pocket and have internet anywhere
I go.
Eddie Haskell
21.11.2012, 14:48:4621.11.12
an
news:pg9oa8t2pv3rupb8m...@4ax.com...
Nope, after the dot com recession the economy was booming amid low
unemployment and revenues were increasing while the deficits was going down
until the financial crisis hit. That's when the economy went into the
shitter and has stayed there because the very people that were responsible
gained politically and were put in, and returned, to office.
-Eddie Haskell
unemployment and revenues were increasing while the deficits was going down
until the financial crisis hit. That's when the economy went into the
shitter and has stayed there because the very people that were responsible
gained politically and were put in, and returned, to office.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
21.11.2012, 14:49:5921.11.12
an
news:v0aoa8t0cmso6uvhu...@4ax.com...
Nah, Hussein's department of homeland security is obviously jamming the
frequency.
-Eddie Haskell
frequency.
-Eddie Haskell
emoneyjoe
21.11.2012, 19:32:3821.11.12
an
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:48:46 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
The deficit wasn't going down under Bush,
the good business climate masked the underlying
problems with the economy and the reduction
of the size of the spending age group until
2007.
The dot.com was a farce to begin with,
very few web sites made any money, ever,
but now most charge or ask for donations
and have the software to manage payments.
The core problems are not going to
be solved by anybody, the problems can
only be compensated for in some way,
the size of the spending age group will
continue to shrink for years, but will
gradually level off, because live births
increased gradually, and are now
near what they were before 1973.
With the distracted and inept people
in government, confusion will be widespread,
I already got a notice that an error was
made in Medicare statements.
The spending goes on, but somehow
the borrowing needs to stop, I turned down
an offer for a handicap scooter monday,
even being broke I could probably afford
it easier than the government.
the good business climate masked the underlying
problems with the economy and the reduction
of the size of the spending age group until
2007.
The dot.com was a farce to begin with,
very few web sites made any money, ever,
but now most charge or ask for donations
and have the software to manage payments.
The core problems are not going to
be solved by anybody, the problems can
only be compensated for in some way,
the size of the spending age group will
continue to shrink for years, but will
gradually level off, because live births
increased gradually, and are now
near what they were before 1973.
With the distracted and inept people
in government, confusion will be widespread,
I already got a notice that an error was
made in Medicare statements.
The spending goes on, but somehow
the borrowing needs to stop, I turned down
an offer for a handicap scooter monday,
even being broke I could probably afford
it easier than the government.
emoneyjoe
21.11.2012, 19:34:4321.11.12
an
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:49:59 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
It is a 1G cell phone tower, I get 4G with
the Hotspot modem-router in the bigger
cities in either direction.
the Hotspot modem-router in the bigger
cities in either direction.
0 neue Nachrichten