A Pops quote:
"This may be a "newsflash" to YOU?, but no wrongdoing was found by a panel of repudlickins looking for something that didn't exist."
_______________________________________________________________________
Okay Pops, lets try this:
The House Committee on Benghazi closed their investigation so that a Select Committee could be formed to proceed.
Do you know why?
Hint: the reason has been explained here in depth.
Can Pops answer the question?
you refuse to answer anybody's questions or back up any of your assertions, why should I answer yours?. you are a punk-a$$clown, and will be treated as such.
_________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you could answer the question but I wanted to give you an opportunity.
BTW - I have never refuse to answer anybody's questions and you can not supply one occasion so stop lying.
A Pops quote:
"This may be a "newsflash" to YOU?, but no wrongdoing was found by a panel of repudlickins looking for something that didn't exist."
_______________________________________________________________________
Okay Pops, lets try this:
The House Committee on Benghazi closed their investigation so that a Select Committee could be formed to proceed.
Do you know why?
Hint: the reason has been explained here in depth.
Can Pops answer the question?
you refuse to answer anybody's questions or back up any of your assertions, why should I answer yours?. you are a punk-a$$clown, and will be treated as such.
_________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you could answer the question but I wanted to give you an opportunity.
BTW - I have never refuse to answer anybody's questions and you can not supply one occasion so stop lying.
You are lying.
A Pops quote:
"This may be a "newsflash" to YOU?, but no wrongdoing was found by a panel of repudlickins looking for something that didn't exist."
_______________________________________________________________________
Okay Pops, lets try this:
The House Committee on Benghazi closed their investigation so that a Select Committee could be formed to proceed.
Do you know why?
Hint: the reason has been explained here in depth.
Can Pops answer the question?
you refuse to answer anybody's questions or back up any of your assertions, why should I answer yours?. you are a punk-a$$clown, and will be treated as such.
_________________________________________________________________
I didn't think you could answer the question but I wanted to give you an opportunity.
BTW - I have never refuse to answer anybody's questions and you can not supply one occasion so stop lying.
You are lying.
_______________________________________________________________
Can keller answer the question?
In the end she is corrupt to the core and Democrats simply don't care. Mainly because they have no alternative. They will stick with her and do everything they can to ignore it just as Sandy Berger literally removing classified documents and taking them home with him was laughed off as was everything that happened in the Clinton administration. I find it sad.
The bar continues to get lower and nobody cares. People just don't care.
IMO folks are so used to slime and corruption by now it's just accepted as the norm. Even in the Third World countries ruled by the most corrupt governments imaginable, the people eventually come to accept it, even though they're probably starving half to death and have a standard of living suitable for a dog on a chain.
Is there a lesson here somewhere?
[Edited on 3/12/2015 by alloak41]
In the end she is corrupt to the core and Democrats simply don't care. Mainly because they have no alternative. They will stick with her and do everything they can to ignore it just as Sandy Berger literally removing classified documents and taking them home with him was laughed off as was everything that happened in the Clinton administration. I find it sad.
The bar continues to get lower and nobody cares. People just don't care.
IMO folks are so used to slime and corruption by now it's just accepted as the norm. Even in the Third World countries ruled by the most corrupt governments imaginable, the people eventually come to accept it, even though they're probably starving half to death and have a standard of living suitable for a dog on a chain.
_____________________________________________________________
Corruption is not a problem for the left. It is their standard operating protocol.
Some top Democrats are alarmed about Clinton’s readiness for a campaign
By Philip Rucker and Paul Kane March 11 at 7:38 PM
Senior Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not ready to run for president, fearing that the clumsy and insular handling of the nine-day fracas over her private e-mails was a warning sign about the campaign expected to launch next month.
Few Democrats believe that the revelations about her un¬or¬tho¬dox e-mail practices as secretary of state are a substantive issue that would damage Clinton with voters, and many said she performed adequately in a Tuesday news conference defending herself.
[Some Democrats are looking for an alternative in 2016]
But in interviews Wednesday with The Washington Post, current and former Democratic officeholders and operatives from across the country raised serious questions about her and her political team’s strength and readiness for a 2016 presidential campaign.
“She’s tried to put the day of reckoning off, but it’s come now, and I don’t think she can stand another couple of weeks of this without her structure in place,” said Jim Hodges, a former governor of South Carolina.
“Had this story been responded to in two or three days instead of in eight days, it would not be as big,” said Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary under President Obama. (David Goldman/AP)
Some Democrats also said Clinton’s initial refusal to provide answers to the growing controversy over her private e-mails smacked of arrogance and a worrisome bunker mentality — and that the controversy was a self-inflicted wound.
[The Fix: There are 31,380 Clinton e-mails we’ll never see]
“Had this story been responded to in two or three days instead of in eight days, it would not be as big,” said Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary under President Obama. “They are the ones who put air in this balloon in a way that was not necessary at all. .?.?. It’s clear they lack an apparatus. She’s a candidate without a campaign.”
A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Last week, supporters in Congress and others were willing to go on cable television to defend Clinton on the e-mails but were puzzled when her aides did not provide talking points or other information that might help them, according to Clinton allies.
“A lot of people were flying blind,” said one Democratic ally who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Requests for information “were met with dead silence” from Clinton’s team, this person said. “This shows they have a long way to go until their organization is ready for prime time.”
Some of Clinton’s longtime allies in the Senate and House leadership did receive guidance from the Clinton camp, although their aides were frustrated that they had to proactively reach out to Clinton aides to get it.
But Correct the Record — an outside political group set up specifically to defend Clinton in the media — received only a brief set of talking points from Clinton’s office instructing them to dismiss the story as silly and to compare Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account to former secretary of state Colin Powell’s use of an AOL account. The group was given no additional information for days, leaving Correct the Record founder David Brock and other surrogates to craft their own, sometimes incongruous, defenses.
[Absence of 2016 competition raises stakes for Democrats]
Many Democrats who want Clinton to succeed lament that she has stepped back into the political arena in a defensive posture, reminding voters what they disliked about the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. “This begins her campaign in a bad place — it’s the gateway drug to her past,” said one Democratic strategist and presidential campaign veteran who requested anonymity to speak candidly.
Some Democrats also believe that Clinton comes off as coy or cynical by repeatedly insisting she has not made a decision to run for president, even as she signs up dozens of senior campaign staffers in New York, Iowa and elsewhere.
“Democrats are really worried about her,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based strategist who once worked for Clinton. “They want to be sure that she can win. They’re not used to this anxiety, because they’ve had eight years of winners.”
Nevertheless, Clinton is the unquestioned presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and polling suggests she is weathering the bad news cycle so far. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Monday finds her favorable rating at 44 percent, compared with 36 percent unfavorable. Among likely Democratic primary voters, 86 percent said they could see themselves supporting Clinton. Just 13 percent said they could not.
“The best answer to this is going to be when she starts running for president and is traveling around the country talking about things that people care about,” said longtime Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.
William M. Daley, an influential Chicago Democrat who served as White House chief of staff during Obama’s first term, said he thinks Clinton “stopped the bleeding” with her news conference. But he acknowledged that neither her performance nor her continued strength in polling have calmed agita among Democratic elites.
“There’s a disconnect between her standing right now and this Democratic chattering class of nervousness,” Daley said. Asked how she might convince leaders in her party that the controversy is in the rearview mirror, he said: “Assure Democrats there can’t be another flare-up? She can’t do that.”
Some Clinton defenders said the media scrutiny on the e-mails story has been unfair to her.
“She used the wrong e-mail account — duh-dah! It’s ridiculous,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “I’m not indulging this bizarre fetish.” Asked if he had doubts about Clinton’s political standing, Whitehouse said: “No. This is totally artificial. You guys have lost your minds on this.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said she is confident Clinton will be prepared for the rigors of the campaign. “All 50,000 of [the Republicans] that are running for president are going to take every opportunity to rip her apart. That’s called a campaign — and I’m fully aware that she expects that.”
Clinton has been operating without a full team. While campaign-manager-in-waiting Robby Mook and longtime confidante Huma Abedin are already on board, some of the senior aides tapped for her campaign are not yet, including Jennifer Palmieri, who will become Clinton’s communications director but still holds the same position in the Obama White House.
Strategist Kiki McLean, a Clinton ally, said the past week has been “more of an issue of staff capacity than competence.”
Another strategist and Clinton ally, Hilary Rosen, said that this was “definitely not the month they’d hoped for” but that the Clinton team plans to build a better communications and political operation to manage future controversies.
“It’s unfortunate that they didn’t prepare earlier for this, but I don’t think that we should look at this as a symbol of anything other than just bad timing,” Rosen said. “I think they’re moving quickly to try and accommodate the tremendous interest in her right now. That’s a challenge.”
Former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, a longtime Clinton backer, said that her news conference was “a good first step” but that “she’s got to be more forthcoming.”
“If there’s no serious campaign, she still has to put herself out there because of who she is, because of the obsession over the Clintons,” Rendell said. “She’ll be forced to answer questions — and she’s got to be in a position to do it.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he wants to see Clinton’s campaign up and running so she can talk about issues that energize voters, such as income inequality.
“I think the debate really is joined now with so many Republicans in the field,” Wyden said. “When you have a formal campaign launch, that puts in place a communications network and an infrastructure. .?.?. I think that will be very helpful.”
James Blanchard, a former governor of Michigan who chaired Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in the state, said the past nine days showed him that “she’ll need to be more on her toes.”
“The team around her is on notice now that they’ll need to respond to criticisms and accusations in a more timely fashion,” Blanchard said.
Anne Gearan contributed to this report.
Philip Rucker is a national political correspondent for The Washington Post, where he has reported since 2005.
Paul Kane covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post.
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
Is that really necessary at this point in our history? Trickle-down economics has been instrumental in creating the most dynamic and prosperous economy in the history of the Universe. Trickle-down economics is nothing new, it didn't start in the 80's or with Reagan.
For a few examples, look no further than the Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller types. These gentlemen created businesses, then used their resulting fortunes to build entire industries which have employed millions and created products that have contributed to the high standard of living we have enjoyed as Americans.
Trickle-down economics has ALWAYS worked and it's still working today. Every day an employee at Ford today shows up for work Trickle-down economics is working. Same with the Steel worker or anybody involved in the Oil and Gas industry.
Hell, every time you buy a product or report to work Trickle-down economics is working. At some point, an entrepreneur, investor, or group of investors undertook an enterprise that ultimately made those two things possible.
In the end she is corrupt to the core and Democrats simply don't care. Mainly because they have no alternative. They will stick with her and do everything they can to ignore it just as Sandy Berger literally removing classified documents and taking them home with him was laughed off as was everything that happened in the Clinton administration. I find it sad.
The bar continues to get lower and nobody cares. People just don't care.
IMO folks are so used to slime and corruption by now it's just accepted as the norm. Even in the Third World countries ruled by the most corrupt governments imaginable, the people eventually come to accept it, even though they're probably starving half to death and have a standard of living suitable for a dog on a chain.
_____________________________________________________________
Corruption is not a problem for the left. It is their standard operating protocol.
Watergate
Iran Contra
John Ensign
Spiro Agnew
Tom DeLay
Duke Cunningham
Mark Foley
Bob Ney
Curt Weldon
Sam Brownback
Tom Corbett
Nathan Deal
All Republicans
All Investigated or being investigated for corruption.
quote:
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
___________________________________________________________________________
Easy.
President Reagan used it to pull us out of Carter/Democrats recession which set up the next ten years of a vibrant economy.
Next question?
In the end she is corrupt to the core and Democrats simply don't care. Mainly because they have no alternative. They will stick with her and do everything they can to ignore it just as Sandy Berger literally removing classified documents and taking them home with him was laughed off as was everything that happened in the Clinton administration. I find it sad.
The bar continues to get lower and nobody cares. People just don't care.
IMO folks are so used to slime and corruption by now it's just accepted as the norm. Even in the Third World countries ruled by the most corrupt governments imaginable, the people eventually come to accept it, even though they're probably starving half to death and have a standard of living suitable for a dog on a chain.
_____________________________________________________________
Corruption is not a problem for the left. It is their standard operating protocol.
Watergate
Iran Contra
John Ensign
Spiro Agnew
Tom DeLay
Duke Cunningham
Mark Foley
Bob Ney
Curt Weldon
Sam Brownback
Tom Corbett
Nathan DealAll Republicans
All Investigated or being investigated for corruption.
Not only that, but resignations and/or jail sentences can be associated to most of that list. Corruption met with punishment and accountability. A novel idea.
quote:
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
___________________________________________________________________________Easy.
President Reagan used it to pull us out of Carter/Democrats recession which set up the next ten years of a vibrant economy.Next question?
Revisionist history at its finest, and Reagan was as corrupt as they come.
quote:
quote:
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
___________________________________________________________________________Easy.
President Reagan used it to pull us out of Carter/Democrats recession which set up the next ten years of a vibrant economy.Next question?
Revisionist history at its finest, and Reagan was as corrupt as they come.
Even Bush the 1st called Reagan's approach "Voodoo Economics."
Alloak I thought the center piece of trickle down economics was that cutting taxes for the very rich led them to create more jobs and spend more money. Yet that has not happened. What trickle down are you talking about? Do you think corporations and the rich should not be taxed? How do you explain the growth of the 1950's when both the rich and corporations were taxed at massive rates?
quote:
quote:
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
___________________________________________________________________________Easy.
President Reagan used it to pull us out of Carter/Democrats recession which set up the next ten years of a vibrant economy.Next question?
Revisionist history at its finest, and Reagan was as corrupt as they come.
Even Bush the 1st called Reagan's approach "Voodoo Economics."
Alloak I thought the center piece of trickle down economics was that cutting taxes for the very rich led them to create more jobs and spend more money. Yet that has not happened. What trickle down are you talking about? Do you think corporations and the rich should not be taxed? How do you explain the growth of the 1950's when both the rich and corporations were taxed at massive rates?
Trickle-down economics and tax policy are two separate issues. Reagan might have used the concept of TDE to help sell his tax plan but that's as far as the connection goes. Whether tax cuts would spur additional investment is a whole separate debate.
However, many have mistakenly viewed TDE and Reagan's tax plan as one in the same. Consequently, the myth that TDE "doesn't work" was born. It's ALWAYS worked.
[Edited on 3/12/2015 by alloak41]
I don't see the Republicans winning anytime soon. If they truly believe in trickle-down economics then SHOW how your theory actually works.
Is that really necessary at this point in our history? Trickle-down economics has been instrumental in creating the most dynamic and prosperous economy in the history of the Universe. Trickle-down economics is nothing new, it didn't start in the 80's or with Reagan.
For a few examples, look no further than the Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller types. These gentlemen created businesses, then used their resulting fortunes to build entire industries which have employed millions and created products that have contributed to the high standard of living we have enjoyed as Americans.
Trickle-down economics has ALWAYS worked and it's still working today. Every day an employee at Ford today shows up for work Trickle-down economics is working. Same with the Steel worker or anybody involved in the Oil and Gas industry.
Hell, every time you buy a product or report to work Trickle-down economics is working. At some point, an entrepreneur, investor, or group of investors undertook an enterprise that ultimately made those two things possible.
Since you asked, here's the trickle-down I was talking about.
Since you asked, here's the trickle-down I was talking about.
Here's a definition of Trickle Down Economics I got from a web site called Investopedia. I've been using the site to teach my Nephew about investing in the stock market. They have a stock market simulators that allow a person to trade fake money in the market, thus helping an individual become familiar with the vocabulary and mechanics of the market without risking real money. Before I began investing I played a simulation for longer than three years and learned a lot.
DEFINITION OF 'TRICKLE-DOWN THEORY'
An economic idea which states that decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates - especially for corporations, investors and entrepreneurs - can stimulate production in the overall economy. According to trickle-down theory proponents, this stimulus leads to economic growth and wealth creation that benefits everyone, not just those who pay the lower tax rates.
I think there is more evidence that a healthy middle class grows an economy more than and elite wealthy tax. The tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in Kansas obviously destroyed the Kansas economy.
I think what you described is the purer form of capitalism that built America. Today the rich, the corporations, don't re-invest in America. We have a global economy. The goods and materials that Americans consume are not made or harvested in America.
I quickly found five different sources on the internet that define trickle down economics. All of them place lower taxes for the rich and corporations as the key means of stimulating growth.
When the rich pay fewer taxes the poor and middle class pay more. That is what is happening. Because the middle class is burdened with so many taxes they cannot buy the goods to stimulate the economy.
I think what you described is the purer form of capitalism that built America. Today the rich, the corporations, don't re-invest in America. We have a global economy. The goods and materials that Americans consume are not made or harvested in America.
How does this statement square up with our current level of domestic Oil production? You don't believe that the energy companies made significant investments developing extraction techniques that led to the current levels of production?
I think there is more evidence that a healthy middle class grows an economy more than and elite wealthy tax. The tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in Kansas obviously destroyed the Kansas economy.
I think what you described is the purer form of capitalism that built America. Today the rich, the corporations, don't re-invest in America. We have a global economy. The goods and materials that Americans consume are not made or harvested in America.
I quickly found five different sources on the internet that define trickle down economics. All of them place lower taxes for the rich and corporations as the key means of stimulating growth.
When the rich pay fewer taxes the poor and middle class pay more. That is what is happening. Because the middle class is burdened with so many taxes they cannot buy the goods to stimulate the economy.
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
I think there is more evidence that a healthy middle class grows an economy more than and elite wealthy tax. The tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in Kansas obviously destroyed the Kansas economy.
I think what you described is the purer form of capitalism that built America. Today the rich, the corporations, don't re-invest in America. We have a global economy. The goods and materials that Americans consume are not made or harvested in America.
I quickly found five different sources on the internet that define trickle down economics. All of them place lower taxes for the rich and corporations as the key means of stimulating growth.
When the rich pay fewer taxes the poor and middle class pay more. That is what is happening. Because the middle class is burdened with so many taxes they cannot buy the goods to stimulate the economy.
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
The Left's insatiable thirst for higher taxes is puzzling. If not from a moral standpoint, just from a practicality standpoint. How would a relative few rich people paying higher taxes help the middle class? If high tax rates were good for the economy we should set them at 90% across the board and be done with it.
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
I've advocated for cutting defense spending for decades. I live in Northern Virginia. The richest people I know do not work for the government. They work for Lockheed, Boeing, and/or lobbying and law firms. They are the people I propose taxing more since they are the beneficiaries of the government's corporate welfare and tax breaks.
The Left's insatiable thirst for higher taxes is puzzling. If not from a moral standpoint, just from a practicality standpoint. How would a relative few rich people paying higher taxes help the middle class? If high tax rates were good for the economy we should set them at 90% across the board and be done with it.
Why are you happy paying more taxes while the rich and the corporations pay a smaller percentage than you?
Shoot yourself in the head much?
You are poisoned. You don't even hear what I'm saying. Never have I advocated that the middle class pay higher taxes. Why are you happy letting the rich and corporations pay so much less, percentage wise, than you are paying?
Talk about low info voters...
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
I've advocated for cutting defense spending for decades. I live in Northern Virginia. The richest people I know do not work for the government. They work for Lockheed, Boeing, and/or lobbying and law firms. They are the people I propose taxing more since they are the beneficiaries of the government's corporate welfare and tax breaks.
The Left's insatiable thirst for higher taxes is puzzling. If not from a moral standpoint, just from a practicality standpoint. How would a relative few rich people paying higher taxes help the middle class? If high tax rates were good for the economy we should set them at 90% across the board and be done with it.
Why are you happy paying more taxes while the rich and the corporations pay a smaller percentage than you?
Shoot yourself in the head much?
You are poisoned. You don't even hear what I'm saying. Never have I advocated that the middle class pay higher taxes. Why are you happy letting the rich and corporations pay so much less, percentage wise, than you are paying?
Talk about low info voters...
I don't hear what you're saying? Your posting history is rife with complaints about others not paying enough in taxes. And you never answered the question. How does a relative few rich people paying more in taxes help the middle class?
Also, the taxes corporations pay are merely priced into what the consumer pays for goods and services.
I'll never understand why we can't just do a flat tax based on gross income. No write-offs, deductions, nothing. For corporations as well as individuals. Period. Fund social security, medicaid/medicare as true lock boxes. Then live within our budget. Just makes sense to me.
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
I've advocated for cutting defense spending for decades. I live in Northern Virginia. The richest people I know do not work for the government. They work for Lockheed, Boeing, and/or lobbying and law firms. They are the people I propose taxing more since they are the beneficiaries of the government's corporate welfare and tax breaks.
NThe Left's insatiable thirst for higher taxes is puzzling. If not from a moral standpoint, just from a practicality standpoint. How would a relative few rich people paying higher taxes help the middle class? If high tax rates were good for the economy we should set them at 90% across the board and be done with it.
Why are you happy paying more taxes while the rich and the corporations pay a smaller percentage than you?
Shoot yourself in the head much?
You are poisoned. You don't even hear what I'm saying. Never have I advocated that the middle class pay higher taxes. Why are you happy letting the rich and corporations pay so much less, percentage wise, than you are paying?
Talk about low info voters...
I don't hear what you're saying? Your posting history is rife with complaints about others not paying enough in taxes. And you never answered the question. How does a relative few rich people paying more in taxes help the middle class?
Also, the taxes corporations pay are merely priced into what the consumer pays for goods and services.
Raising taxes on the rich, combined with a lowering of taxes on the middle class would allow the middle class to have more spendable income which would in turn increase middle class spending. This would increase the sales of consumer goods which would increase production. Sounds like a winner.
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth. Government didn't build this country but this current one seems hell bent on destroying it. We can start by getting rid of the IRS, the obviously criminal agent for big bloated intrusive government. Hey why is It the 6 out of the 10 richest communities in the country are around Washington DC.
I've advocated for cutting defense spending for decades. I live in Northern Virginia. The richest people I know do not work for the government. They work for Lockheed, Boeing, and/or lobbying and law firms. They are the people I propose taxing more since they are the beneficiaries of the government's corporate welfare and tax breaks.
The Left's insatiable thirst for higher taxes is puzzling. If not from a moral standpoint, just from a practicality standpoint. How would a relative few rich people paying higher taxes help the middle class? If high tax rates were good for the economy we should set them at 90% across the board and be done with it.
Why are you happy paying more taxes while the rich and the corporations pay a smaller percentage than you?
Shoot yourself in the head much?
You are poisoned. You don't even hear what I'm saying. Never have I advocated that the middle class pay higher taxes. Why are you happy letting the rich and corporations pay so much less, percentage wise, than you are paying?
Talk about low info voters...
______________________________________________________________________
How much is too much?
Why should people that worked hard and earned their money have to pay higher taxes?
What is your tax plan?
Yes, TDE does indeed work......IF those billionaires are decent enough to reinvest it back into the country. Or they may buy a few more yachts and beach mansions. Please spare me how the mansions and yachts would put a few people to work. I don't think liberals want higher taxes for the rich....we just want them to stop getting even more financial advantages than they already have over the middle class.
Yes, TDE does indeed work......IF those billionaires are decent enough to reinvest it back into the country. Or they may buy a few more yachts and beach mansions. Please spare me how the mansions and yachts would put a few people to work. I don't think liberals want higher taxes for the rich....we just want them to stop getting even more financial advantages than they already have over the middle class.
_____________________________________________________________________
Those "financial advantages" are bestowed by Congress.
What tax plan are you proposing and who in Congress is sponsoring that tax plan?
I don't hear what you're saying? Your posting history is rife with complaints about others not paying enough in taxes. And you never answered the question. How does a relative few rich people paying more in taxes help the middle class?
Also, the taxes corporations pay are merely priced into what the consumer pays for goods and services.
What was the tax rate on corporations when henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller were beginning their businesses? They were far, far higher alloak. Why was Ford able to make an affordable car while passing on all those taxes?
I can't debate ignorance.
You don't understand trickle down economics and you don't understand that you are being duped by the corporations and the rich. 1% of the population own more than 50% of the world's wealth. What would happen if they had to pay more taxes? Would they only own 43% of the world's wealth? What could they not buy that they can buy now? What would they sacrifice?
When so few people own so very, very much it helps the middle class when the rich pay more of the burden.
Why do you want to pay more???
Heck alloak, I do well. I pay more in taxes than my brothers make in a year. But I am not "wealthy". I recognize I get breaks and know there are bigger breaks if I had more money and more investments. Why shouldn't I pay as much tax on rental income or stock gains as I would pay on regular income? Why do I only have to pay Social Security for the first two and a half months out of the year instead of the whole year? I bet you pay the whole year.
It is obvious you feel you need to advocate for the rich. I hope they are thanking you. The funny thing is they pay plenty of people lots and lots of money to be their advocates. You should really try to get on some billionaires payroll.
What was the tax rate on corporations when henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller were beginning their businesses? They were far, far higher alloak. Why was Ford able to make an affordable car while passing on all those taxes?
I can't debate ignorance.
Actually that is not true
The taxes were much less then , just as was the income tax which when passed by amendment in 1913
The income tax was 1- 7% The corporate rate when it started was 1% eventually jumped up to 12% then went way up during world war II. The Growth of government is the biggest threat to this country not rich people. You are obviously advocating for the political class, lobbiest, and the crony capitalist that steal from the honest american worker. They must be thanking you.
Technically income tax was collected beginning in 1862 to help fund war efforts, but on an irregular basis until the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Historical tax rates here in Excel, interesting stuff: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal_adjusted-2013_0523.xls
Has it ever occurred to you to cut the government spending to enable the taxes to be cut for everybody and let the free market create wealth which would help everybody outside the political class? The ones who benefit by higher taxes are the ones in government. . Government does not create wealth, it steals it. The free market creates wealth.
I can't follow treating the government and the whatever our current version of the "free market" is as two separate entities. They are intrinsically linked at the very core.
A truly free free market certainly wouldn't need subsidies, tax breaks or any form of private sector welfare, now would it?
What that table does not reflect is, as I have vented about before is in 1913 the tax code was 4000 words , now is in the millions of words. Get rid of this ridiculous tax code. Go to a consumption based tax system with money for American citizens to get pre-bates for the first 30k of purchase to cover the basics. And as far as government we do not need the size of a federal government that we have now , not even close to what is now draining the system with it's sell out to all the special interest groups . Drain the pond.