|
45398. judithathome - 11/28/2012 11:59:45 PM Well, that's what is known as "sauce for the goose". 45399. arkymalarky - 11/29/2012 1:29:18 AM Arrogant is rejecting democracy when you don't get your way. Delusional arrogance. 45400. concerned - 11/29/2012 1:45:06 AM "sauce for the goose"
So 0bama's legacy is 'payback'?
What bitter, small, people with shriveled consciences support 0bama. 45401. concerned - 11/29/2012 1:46:39 AM Darn - now you guys can't own a piece of original 0bama art:
 45402. concerned - 11/29/2012 1:48:14 AM Maybe I'll create '0bama in Deep Doo - Doo', with his head embedded in a piece of rubber dogshit and put it up on Ebay. $11,000 isn't anything to sneer at. 45403. concerned - 11/29/2012 1:59:31 AM Kaynsian Economics is still weilding models, confirmed by reality. Taxes must rise upon the rich or the debt will not reduce, and the deficit remains a tangible threat to future GDP growth.
This excerpt is completely wrong, except for the last 9 words.
Milton Friedman pointed out that Keynesian deficit spending stimulus has only limited usefulness, and that within a few months, the economy adapts itself so that that sort of stimulus policy loses all effectiveness past its initial application. So TARP in 2008 had a small stimulus effect, but no deficit driven policy has since that point in time.
Plus what the Democrats are doing doesn't even rise to the level of discredited Keynesianism. Keynes himself would have adamantly opposed the nearly $6 trillion dollars of Democrat deficit spending during the last four years, considering that the GDP has only grown less than $1 trillion dollars during that period. The effective economic 'multiplier' of 0bama era economic policies: Less than 20%.
Keynes required a deficit multiplier of over 100% for there to be any stimulus effect. But all this is surely way over the head of anybody who can't even spell his last name correctly.
45404. concerned - 11/29/2012 2:05:38 AM Re. 45386 -
Early voting has been curtailed where I live too, and nobody is claiming any evil partisan motive for that. Maybe it has to do with trying to save money since the economy has been so bad for the last four years. 45405. concerned - 11/29/2012 2:12:24 AM Do any of you Lefties have a clue how much revenue (at most) would be gathered if all the Democrat soak the rich tax plans were fully implemented?
About $30 billion dollars. In reality, the total revenue would probably drop because of the Laffer Curve effect, as they have in GB, France and California.
So, in Lefty world, are you going to persist in saying that best case $30 billion (probably more like a several tens of billion dollars cut in revenue) as a result of a top marginal rate tax increase is going to make a noticeable dent in a $1.2 trillion deficit?
Do you really enjoy sounding like effing morons and tools for power hungry Marxist demagogues? I guess so.
45406. concerned - 11/29/2012 2:34:45 AM The GOP swept in these mechanisms by dismantling the ruling governance. They regard these imaginary trillions as reality, and the hard work of unions muscle and sweat as parasitical.
What a load of crap. It was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagal, and Democrats all down the line who broke down the safeguards against subprime mortgages and liar loans with the CRA and virtually total control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fron the '90's until now. The second things started going south in the mortgage industry, all the lenders doing what Democrats wanted were suddenly vilifed as being 'predatory'.
45407. concerned - 11/29/2012 2:42:14 AM Even Barney Frank, perhaps the prime single culprit behind 'dismantling the ruling governance' admitted that he was 'throwing the dice' as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee trying to further dismantle it when the whole house of cards collapsed in 2008. 45408. alistairconnor - 11/29/2012 12:23:27 PM Secretary of State Candidate Has a Major Financial Stake in Canadian Tar Sands | OnEarth Magazine Susan Rice, the candidate believed to be favored by President Obama to become the next Secretary of State, holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline. If confirmed by the Senate, one of Rice's first duties likely would be consideration, and potentially approval, of the controversial mega-project. Rice's financial holdings could raise questions about her status as a neutral decision maker. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Rice owns stock valued between $300,000 and $600,000 in TransCanada, the company seeking a federal permit to transport tar sands crude 1,700 miles to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, crossing fragile Midwest ecosystems and the largest freshwater aquifer in North America. Beyond that, according to financial disclosure reports, about a third of Rice's personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel -- including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada's eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 -- the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history.
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I got a gal....
In Kalamazoo45409. RickNelson - 11/29/2012 12:29:16 PM Regarding 45392
Concerned,
The reality is that article is faulty. There are no current statistics to prove the migration of millionaire income earners. The latest tables are only up to '09-'10. There are no national statistics from HMRC data to prove any migration of that population.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/income-by-year.htm
look for yourself, then check the table where your article gets it's data
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/income-by-year/table3-5.pdf
and then look at the HMRC data for the nation.
See that the data show receipts are stable, and have increased for '10 and '11.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/receipts-stats.pdf
The Telegraph article by Winnett isn't a winner. Its fawlty logic falls into the depths of the fawlty towers at the Telegraph. 45410. RickNelson - 11/29/2012 12:36:15 PM Stable receipts in the UK
Telegraph article by Winnett, source of data
HMRC Data Source in the UK
45411. RickNelson - 11/29/2012 12:48:31 PM Alistair,
It's getting very difficult to work with anyone in government, as so many are involved in self-interest. It's a disease.
Google "Safety in the Park" and check out a freight rail fiasco in my part of the world. Sick and sad. Gail Dorfman is a key player in hurting her constituents. I've met and talked to this self absorbed tool. She's horrible, insular and uninformed. I'm not too happy about Amy Klobuchar either, but I have Al Franken and Keith Ellison to make up for that. Informed and actually concerned with facts.
About Safety in the Park
45412. RickNelson - 11/29/2012 1:48:36 PM Regarding 45393
Saying no to Laffer
Laffer isn't a laugh
Laffer embarrassment
Basic ideas do not make sweeping theory.
Laffer takes common sense and distorts it into a political wonks tool. It's laughable. Anyone with common sense knows taxes can't be raised beyond a certain level. We don't need Laffer ignorant theoretic theatrics to understand or explain it.
That's the problem with you rightwing ignoramous', you don't think, with consequences of deep misunderstanding. You create divisions of class with these ignorant tools. There's no econ student with a bachelors, and common sense, who will idolize the Laffer Curve. It's an unnecessary and redundant to economic analysis. We only need to analyze overall GDP to tax rates to understand what level is optimal. We do not need an arbitrary curve that pushes the logic of lower taxes. It's not logical. 45413. RickNelson - 11/29/2012 1:52:09 PM Soaking the rich will increase revenues near a Trillion.
That will not destroy them, it will not cause a mass exodus.
Prices will go up aka inflation. PERIOD! 45414. alistairconnor - 11/29/2012 3:42:38 PM It's good to read you Rick, and making so much sense too. 45415. judithathome - 11/29/2012 6:23:32 PM 45400.
Okay, perhaps I give you too much credit...sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: we didn't particularly think Bush was all that great as President, either. 45416. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:10:53 PM Soaking the rich will increase revenues near a Trillion.
No. The top 10% of US incomes earned in 2011 TOTALED about a trillion dollars. You'd have to take 100% of it to get a trillion dollars of revenue. And, btw, these higher bracket incomes are largely, if not predominantly capital gains, not salaries, so only a fraction of this $1 trillion would be affected by taxes on salaries.
The Democrats want to increase the top marginal tax rate by 5% which would work out to only $50 billion, based on the above numbers. That's assuming, of course, that people with these incomes would stand still to have their pockets picked by Uncle Scam. The examples I gave upstream regarding GB and California strongly suggest that even a 5% top marginal tax increase would cause many of them to re-allocate their incomes to reduce exposure to US income taxes.
Looks like you'll have to abandon your dreams of balancing the budget by 'soaking the rich'. It just ain't gonna happen.
45417. concerned - 11/29/2012 7:15:21 PM That will not destroy them, it will not cause a mass exodus.
It will cause them to adjust their incomes to be relatively immune from this sort of taxation. When the top marginal rate was 93%, virtually nobody paid anything like that. They moved their investments offshore or reallocated them into tax free bonds, non profit foundations, etc. etc.
It's a lock that they'll do this again as soon as stupid Democrats start trying to 'soak' them. The result will be a drop in US based job making investments. Lefties will be aiming for the rich, but they'll wind up wounding, perhaps mortally, the middle class, all the time denying all responsibility.
|
