Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Demoscats, Tax, Tax, Tax, Spend, Spend, Spend

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Demoscats, Tax, Tax, Tax, Spend, Spend, Spend
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2011 08:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And now...in spite of O'Bomber's promise..."If you make less than $250K per year, you won't see any of your taxes go up one penny"...Dick Dustbin from Illinois wants to tax Internet sales.

Question:

Do most Internet users make less than $250K per year...or not?

Question:

Is there any promise O'Bomber has kept..so far?

Oh yeah, O'Bomber promised to skyrocket energy costs. When O'Bomber was elected, regular gasoline was $1.89 per gallon. Today, the average price of regular is $3.99. Yea O'Bomber.

April 12, 2011 4:00 AM PDT
Democratic senator wants Internet sales taxes
by Declan McCullagh.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20052999-281.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 15, 2011 08:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And now, Kommander Korruption..aka Bill Clinton wants to monitor and censor the Internet...by a government agency no less.

There just cannot be too much government meddling in the lives of citizens for demoscats.

It's always for a very good cause..don't you know, and it always creates yet another taxpayer funded bureaucracy and, if they can work the words children or kids into the mix.."It's for the chilllldren"...then, they think they've got a winner.

Hey kids! Let's set up an agency to monitor and censor the internet!

"Let's say the U.S. did it, it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn't think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out," Clinton said. **The serial liar talking about falsehood is rich indeed!**

"That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors" he said. "And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money." **National Public Radio or the BBC? Kommander Korruption must be insane to think anyone believes a word they say!**
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/bill_clinton_is_a_dangerous_ma.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 19, 2011 10:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 28, 2011 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Happily, the next election is only 18 months away. There's a lot of Socialist Progressives who act like the money we earn really belongs to them.

A 62% Top Tax Rate?
Democrats have said they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. In reality they're proposing rates like those under President Carter.
Stephen Moore

Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s. ............
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6483
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2011 05:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
and still a good deal less than the 70% kennedy installed prior to another of the big booms we have witnessed in recent decades. these things are not cut-and-dried, jwhop, and to suggest they are is disingenuous on your part.

in the 20s when the tax rates were cut and we saw a HUGE boom, it was a boom very similar to that of the first decade of this century...more like a bubble that was getting too big to continue.

when roosevelt installed those 90%+ rates, say conservatives, it stalled growth...great, except that means pretending that growth didn't then happen with those high rates still in place. kennedy didn't lower them for 20 years after roosevelt. so during truman and eisenhower's terms, which most people would agree were growth years, the top bracket was keeping only 10% - IF they didn't find a way around it, which the richest tend to do in ANY tax environment. of COURSE when taxes are lower they don't bother to hide as much, but they are still shovelling money away into neverneverland.

and reagan STILL imposed taxes on business etc despite the APPEARANCE and memory of big cuts. he also grew our deficit enormously, hence cheney could say "reagan proved deficits don't matter" and in many ways, he was right if i have to say so myself. if you have to borrow to make things work better, to expand your business, you do it knowing you are creating a position from which to then reduce the deficit.

and didn't governor palin INCREASE taxes on business too, esp the oil business?

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6483
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 01, 2011 11:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no reply?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 01, 2011 12:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Unfortunately, you don't know a thing about the US economic/business cycle" katatonic.

If you did, you'd know that the entire cycle lasts about 55 months...going back to the mid 1800's.

1854-2009 (33 cycles)

Peak to trough
16 months

Previous trough to this peak
42 months

Trough to previous trough
56 months

Peak from previous peak
55 months*

The four elements of the economic/business cycle.

Contraction
Bottom/Trough
Expansion
Peak

There is a reason these cycles occur over and over. I'll leave it to you to ferret out that information. And, when you do so, if you do...you'll know more about the US business cycle...and WHEN to buy and Sell...than most stock brokers and economists.

Btw, this information should be part of the Series 7 Stock Brokers Test...but isn't.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey katatonic, I presume you're working hard, studying the US business cycle.

Let me know when you've cracked the code.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6483
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 11:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
actually i hadn't noticed your post about the 55 month cycles, so i haven't even checked it out....if true it would mean that any 2-term president has had to deal with at least one such and honestly, that doesn't jibe with your account of reagan's rule, nor of the terrible long troughs of the LEFTIS presidents either.

well, never mind; the MAJOR recessions have tended to be about 80 years apart. this one is right on schedule. they are usually followed by major conglagrations, which hopefully this one will not be...

i noticed this as i scrolled down the page, jwhop

When O'Bomber was elected, regular gasoline was $1.89 per gallon

perhaps in florida or on average the price of regular was there in 08, but it hasn't been where i live for years. it was already over $3 before obama came in. at present it is at $3.92 at my gas station, cash price, which is 25c less than it was just before bin laden was taken...

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 01:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, the 55 month average business cycle is true.

BS katatonic. Gas was not $3 per gallon when O'Bomber became the Chief Wastrel.

Perhaps it's time to have your memory tuned up! Regular gasoline in California averaged $1.99 per gallon

Average gas prices--January 12, 2009
Jan 12, 2009 7:11 PM

Source: Energy Information Administration, 1/12/09. Figures rounded to the nearest cent.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/gas-prices-1.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6483
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 02:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes i checked my records and you are right about jan 09. however you seem to have not noticed that in FEB 08 it was about $3..in june it was more like 4, in fact in july of that year i paid MORE than it was a few weeks ago - close to $4.50. unfortunately my little book doesn't go back before early 08 so i don't have figures handy.

and the price went up when the gulf blew up.

but the plain fact is, jwhop, that the price of gas has been shooting up and dropping down to create a basically steady rise since 1999 (actually for decades since cars started getting better mileage as a response to prices at the pump) during guess-who's reign?

as to the 55 month cycle that would mean pretty much every other 4-year term but we are not talking serious drops like this one, which comes about 80 years after the last one (30s) which was 80 years after that one before (1850s) and THAT was 80 years after the one that preceded the revolution.

and guess what has happened after each of THOSE "recessions" or Depressions as they have been renamed to signify their severity?

and no, i hadn't been squirreling away looking for ammunition, i didn't see your post about the 55-month cycles when you posted it. sorry bout that!

i wonder how much we paid for the alaskan kickback ms palin negotiated? if the threat of losing FOUR billion in subsidies was scary, how about the billions forked over then?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3551
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 04:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you attempting to suggest that Sarah Palin was involved in oil company kickbacks when she re-negotiated oil company contracts with the State of Alaska katatonic?

You've make utterly false and reckless charges against Palin before.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6483
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2011 04:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
no i am saying if federal subsidies keep the price down then the "use tax" she negotiated from the oil companies to give checks to alaskans...REMEMBER???...must have impacted ALL of our pump prices too. you know, that deal you are so proud of digging up to show she knows what she is doing, and which completely belies her speechifying about the feds reducing subsidies to the oilers.

how IS that double standard thingy working out for you, hmmmm?

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a