Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The logic of raising taxes on the wealthy
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:07 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, saying he doesn't want to be "coddled" by Congress, says that wealthier Americans should pay higher taxes, and that higher taxes do not dampen job growth. Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, wrote in an op-ed piece published Monday in The New York Times that taxes should be raised on Americans who make at least $1 million per year. "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, who has mentioned in past interviews that the rich should pay higher taxes. ..... The philanthropist said that his 2010 federal tax bill, including income and payroll taxes, was $6,938,744. "That sounds like a lot of money," wrote the Omaha, Neb.-based billionaire. "But what I paid was only 17.4% of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office." He added that some investment managers were taxed only 15% on billions of dollars in income. He compared that to the middle class, with its income tax bracket of up to 25%. He said that 40 million jobs were created between 1980 and 2000, when the tax rate for the rich was higher than it is now. "You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation," he wrote. Buffett proposed that Congress impose a higher tax rate on millionaires, and an even higher tax rate on those making at least $10 million per year. "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress," he wrote. "It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice." http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/15/news/economy/buffett_tax_jobs/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2 gawd, there's an adult in the room! Then there's the logic of it, and this--THIS is important!Quote: In Sunday's New York Times, Warren Buffett discusses the need to raise taxes on the wealthy. He's absolutely right. Tax increases, in general -- as well as tax increases on the wealthiest households, in particular -- need to be a part of the solution. Past major budget agreements, such as the 1983 Social Security reforms and the 1990 and 1993 budget deals, ultimately included both revenue increases and spending cuts. It's not hard to see why: Cutting deficits from both sides of the budget provides a sense of fairness, shared sacrifice and political equilibrium. Also, raising taxes to pay for current spending has proved more effective at restraining spending than allowing the government to finance its outlays with deficits. Every time we have tried to cut spending by restraining taxes, we have failed. In the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan and in the past decade under President George W. Bush, taxes fell, but spending rose. The only time in the past 30 years when spending fell was in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, when taxes were also raised. Even the massive tax increases during and after World War II -- amounting to a permanent rise of 10% to 15% of gross domestic product -- and the much smaller tax increases in 1990 and 1993 did no discernible damage to U.S. economic growth. If we are going to raise taxes as part of the fiscal solution, the tax burden on high-income, high-wealth households needs to rise. The recently enacted debt deal contains only spending cuts and has little or no impact on high-income households. Rather, it puts the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap on low- and middle-income households. High-income households should not be exempted from helping resolve the nation's fiscal problem. Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%. In contrast, real income for middle-class workers has remained roughly constant over the same time frame. There are, of course, better and worse ways to raise taxes. A general goal would be to broaden the tax base -- reduce the use of specialized credits, deductions, loopholes and so on -- and minimize the extent to which tax rates need to rise. One good place to start? High-income households: Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can occur to 28%. This would affect only households in the highest income ranges, it would not raise their official marginal tax rate, and it would raise $293 billion over the next decade, relative to how much money would be raised according to current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This would be a small move in the right direction. Of course, sticking to current law revenues -- that is, either not extending the Bush tax cuts after their scheduled expiration date of 2012 or paying for any extension with a reduction in various tax expenditures -- is even more important. Extending the Bush tax cuts would reduce revenues by about $2.5 trillion over the next decade, relative to current law. Counting net interest savings, it would cost $3 trillion. Letting the cuts expire could actually help economic growth since the lower deficits would more than offset the effect of slightly lower marginal tax rates, and it would be progressive. That would be a big move in the right direction. Eventually, the nation will need to deal with the ballooning costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for an aging population. Even if substantial cuts are made to these programs, the combination of a greatly expanded elderly population and higher federal net interest payments than in the past (because of the higher public debt/GDP ratio) will create a need for additional revenues. There are good options there as well, including a value-added tax -- the equivalent of a national consumption tax and a feature of the tax system of every industrialized country except the U.S. -- and higher energy taxes, to promote a cleaner environment as well as raise revenues. None of this means that the U.S. needs to move to European taxation levels. But between the depleted tax revenues we raise now -- the lowest share of the economy in six decades -- and the high taxes experienced in European countries, there is plenty of room to raise revenues in an economically sound manner to support a reasonable level of government. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/15/gale.taxes.deficit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Obviously I'm not writing this for the benefit of our self-deluded righties, but I thought others, the more rational among us, might find it interesting.
Quote: In Sunday's New York Times, Warren Buffett discusses the need to raise taxes on the wealthy. He's absolutely right. Tax increases, in general -- as well as tax increases on the wealthiest households, in particular -- need to be a part of the solution. Past major budget agreements, such as the 1983 Social Security reforms and the 1990 and 1993 budget deals, ultimately included both revenue increases and spending cuts. It's not hard to see why: Cutting deficits from both sides of the budget provides a sense of fairness, shared sacrifice and political equilibrium. Also, raising taxes to pay for current spending has proved more effective at restraining spending than allowing the government to finance its outlays with deficits. Every time we have tried to cut spending by restraining taxes, we have failed. In the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan and in the past decade under President George W. Bush, taxes fell, but spending rose. The only time in the past 30 years when spending fell was in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, when taxes were also raised. Even the massive tax increases during and after World War II -- amounting to a permanent rise of 10% to 15% of gross domestic product -- and the much smaller tax increases in 1990 and 1993 did no discernible damage to U.S. economic growth. If we are going to raise taxes as part of the fiscal solution, the tax burden on high-income, high-wealth households needs to rise. The recently enacted debt deal contains only spending cuts and has little or no impact on high-income households. Rather, it puts the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap on low- and middle-income households. High-income households should not be exempted from helping resolve the nation's fiscal problem. Households in the top 1% of the distribution can afford to contribute. They have done enormously well during the past 30-plus years. In 1979, their income accounted for 10% of total income. According to the most recent data (from 2008), their share of total household income more than doubled to 21%. In contrast, real income for middle-class workers has remained roughly constant over the same time frame. There are, of course, better and worse ways to raise taxes. A general goal would be to broaden the tax base -- reduce the use of specialized credits, deductions, loopholes and so on -- and minimize the extent to which tax rates need to rise. One good place to start? High-income households: Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can occur to 28%. This would affect only households in the highest income ranges, it would not raise their official marginal tax rate, and it would raise $293 billion over the next decade, relative to how much money would be raised according to current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This would be a small move in the right direction. Of course, sticking to current law revenues -- that is, either not extending the Bush tax cuts after their scheduled expiration date of 2012 or paying for any extension with a reduction in various tax expenditures -- is even more important. Extending the Bush tax cuts would reduce revenues by about $2.5 trillion over the next decade, relative to current law. Counting net interest savings, it would cost $3 trillion. Letting the cuts expire could actually help economic growth since the lower deficits would more than offset the effect of slightly lower marginal tax rates, and it would be progressive. That would be a big move in the right direction. Eventually, the nation will need to deal with the ballooning costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for an aging population. Even if substantial cuts are made to these programs, the combination of a greatly expanded elderly population and higher federal net interest payments than in the past (because of the higher public debt/GDP ratio) will create a need for additional revenues. There are good options there as well, including a value-added tax -- the equivalent of a national consumption tax and a feature of the tax system of every industrialized country except the U.S. -- and higher energy taxes, to promote a cleaner environment as well as raise revenues. None of this means that the U.S. needs to move to European taxation levels. But between the depleted tax revenues we raise now -- the lowest share of the economy in six decades -- and the high taxes experienced in European countries, there is plenty of room to raise revenues in an economically sound manner to support a reasonable level of government. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/15/gale.taxes.deficit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:04 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:37 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:40 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's not revenue, it's S P E N D I N G ! 100%
Monday, August 15, 2011 6:32 PM
DREAMTROVE
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's not revenue, it's S P E N D I N G ! 100% Simple answers often come from simple people! The question I have is how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit? Or the fact that revenue is down because of the economy?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: God, what is ot with the Left and Warren Buffett? Don't you get it? The only reason Buffett wasnt his own taxes raised is that he wants spending to increase because he is a major recipient of spending.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's not revenue, it's S P E N D I N G ! 100% Simple answers often come from simple people! The question I have is how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit? Or the fact that revenue is down because of the economy? This is a simple problem, really. It's just that many want to continue to lie to themselves, and play games. It's like infighting between various religions, all claiming to be serving the one true god. Simple answer is, there IS no god. So all your elaborate arguments for explaining the mind or reason for god's actions are futile, and moot.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:25 AM
Quote:My take is "cut off their supply of cash."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:26 AM
Quote: how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit?
Quote: This is a simple problem, really. It's just that many want to continue to lie to themselves, and play games. It's like infighting between various religions, all claiming to be serving the one true god.
Quote: Do you really think that money passes through corporate hands ONLY because of government? Do you really think that getting rid of government will get rid of corporate power?
Quote: There are a lot of ways of sheltering income from taxes, and some of these are used by wealthy individuals. The classic is to have a "cattle ranch" which is run at a whopping loss, and the loss is taken as a deduction. Another classic way is to "incorporate," and treat yourself as a "business." This allows you to get away with a lot of things that individuals could never do. (I recently heard a story on the radio about how Nike has registered their "swoosh" trademark in a foreign country, and that they claim that much of their profits are due to brand name merchandising, specifically to the logo. Thus they declare a vast chunk of income as "foreign" income, not subject to U.S. corporate income tax. There are a LOT of giant corporations in the U.S., making trillions of dollars collectively, and not paying any taxes at all.)
Quote: Corporate taxes are not too high - they are way too low. In fact the majority of big corporations operating in the U.S. pay no taxes at all. That's right: zero. According to a recent report by the Government Accounting Office requested by Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, "72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005." It gets worse: for at least two of the years between 1998 to 2005 more than one-half of foreign corporations and 42 percent of those from the U.S. paid not one red penny in taxes, despite the astronomical growth of the deficit - now $418 billion and escalating. These guys are taking it all the way to the bank: of those who do pay taxes, some 33 percent, only 2 percent pay more than 11 percent in taxes. None of the corporations were named in the GAO report. At a minimum it's time for full public disclosure. The government must act in the public interest. http://peoplesworld.org/that-s-capitalism-the-super-rich-pay-zero-u-s-taxes/] As we approach April 15 th, one complaint we often hear is that Americans who work hard and become successful have to pay over a third of their income in federal income taxes. But a recent report from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shows that this is not remotely true {Internal Revenue Service, “The 400 Individual Income Tax Returns Reporting the Highest Adjusted Gross Income Each Year, 1992-2006,” January 29, 2009. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06intop400.pdf}. The IRS data show that the federal income tax rates paid by the highest-income Americans have dropped substantially since 2000, largely due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends pushed through by the Bush Administration. While income from work (salaries and wages) is subject to rates as high as 35 percent, income from investments (long-term capital gains and stock dividends) is taxed at only 15 percent. The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes. That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate of 35 percent. Almost 65 percent of the income reported by those 400 taxpayers consisted of capital gains and dividends subject to the preferential rates. The IRS report, which shows the effective federal income tax rates paid by the 400 highest-income Americans in each year since 1992, offers an important opportunity to understand how the tax system affects the most privileged Americans. The table above shows that: Only those with at least $110 million of AGI were members of this group in 2006, and the average AGI for these 400 taxpayers was $263 million. Each one of these 400 taxpayers enjoyed, on average, more than $169 million of net capital gains and dividend income that was subject to special lower tax rates in 2006. Although 400 returns are less than 1/1000th of a percent of the total individual tax returns filed, these 400 taxpayers collected almost 8 percent of the total preferential-rate capital gains and dividends in the nation in 2006. These 400 taxpayers paid income taxes averaging $45 million in 2006. As a share of AGI, their tax bills averaged 17.2 percent. This decline from 22.3 percent to17.2 percent represented a total tax cut of $5.4 billion in 2006 for this group, or an average tax cut of over $13 million each. “This valuable data confirms what we already knew—that the very richest Americans are paying much less of their income in tax than many would have us believe,” noted Citizens for Tax Justice director Robert S. McIntyre. “These taxpayers are now paying lower effective tax rates than at any time since the IRS began publishing these data in 1992—and the Bush Administration’s capital gains tax cuts are the main culprit.” Chart at http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said. The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said. During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study. The report did not name any companies. The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries. With the U.S. budget deficit this year running close to the record $413 billion that was set in 2004 and projected to hit a record $486 billion next year, lawmakers are looking to plug holes in the U.S. tax code and generate more revenues. Dorgan in a statement called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system." Levin said it made clear that "too many corporations are using tax trickery to send their profits overseas and avoid paying their fair share in the United States." The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812 that any of our righties will pay ANY attention to those facts and figures, complete with cites to the IRS itself; they'll just come back with the same old tired talking points. But it's there for the rest of you. Whereas what was claimed to be "scare tactics" by the Dems that "Republicans will take away your Social Security" is in fact exactly what they WILL do, the "the rich are over-taxed" is a proven Republican talking point which is a flat-out lie. People hope to be rich, people feel the rich create jobs (they're not doing much now, are they, with all the extra money they've got??), and the right keeps drumming it into their heads that the wealthy pay a FAR higher percentage of their wealth than all the rest of us. It works pretty damned good, but it's a lie, pure and simple.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote: The question I have is how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit? Or the fact that revenue is down because of the economy? Now would you like to actually respond to my post?
Quote: The question I have is how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit? Or the fact that revenue is down because of the economy?
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The Bush tax cuts didn't add to the deficit. That's the problem w/ the Left, is the out dated, 2 dimensional static scoring concept. Which is curious, because you then acknowledge that we a more realistic, dynamic scoring. The revenue IS down because of the slow economy, which everyone pretty much acknowledges. Which is why Mark Rubio correctly stated - " We don't need new taxes, we need new tax payers "
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:08 AM
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Suggesting that tax cuts add to the deficit assumes the money belongs to the fed govt in the first place. It doesn't.
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And Obama's former Budget Director was in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts. ( I'll guess you'll say that's why he's the FORMER Budget Director - LOL ! )
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:20 AM
Quote: "How did we get into this problem of the big deficit?" Nelson said. "It's basically a fall-off of revenues and an increase in spending. So you got to correct that imbalance; otherwise you're not doing real deficit reduction."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:26 AM
Quote:"The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in."
Quote:In FY2001 spending was $1,862.8 billion; by FY2009 spending was at $3,517.7 billion - more than $1.4 billion more than what was collected in taxes.
Quote:Which is curious, because you then acknowledge that we a more realistic, dynamic scoring.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: "How did we get into this problem of the big deficit?" Nelson said. "It's basically a fall-off of revenues and an increase in spending. So you got to correct that imbalance; otherwise you're not doing real deficit reduction." From the link YOU provided. Note, a Democrat is being quoted here, so he's of course toting the party line, that tax cuts dropped revenue. ( for those specific taxes, yes, but over all revenue was increased ) However, SPENDING out paced the revenue raised, which is the root of the problem.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:34 AM
Quote:How did we get into this problem of the big deficit?" Nelson said. "It's basically a fall-off of revenues and an increase in spending. So you got to correct that imbalance; otherwise you're not doing real deficit reduction
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:42 AM
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:44 AM
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: nickerson - you see only what you want to see, much like Niki. I answered your little question. Now I'm done w/ you.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:20 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Tuesday, August 16, 2011 3:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Once again, when faced with cold, hard facts... Rappy bitches out and runs away.
Friday, August 19, 2011 2:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Once again, when faced with cold, hard facts... Rappy bitches out and runs away. Score one for Kiki. Oh, and the lefties came strong with facts and figures, backing up their assertions and positions with strong data. So score one for me as well. :)
Friday, August 19, 2011 2:27 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of: •Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public. •An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public. •Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt. Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.
Friday, August 19, 2011 2:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: No, score one for me, as I didn't " run away " , but the game was over. I won. Y'all just continued playing, with yourselves.
Friday, August 19, 2011 2:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Until taxes are raised on the wealthy, I'm not sure why Mr. Buffet and other rich folk (or any folk who think they should pay more for that matter) don't take advantage of this program.
Friday, August 19, 2011 2:57 AM
Quote:You don't win by igoring facts!
Friday, August 19, 2011 3:05 AM
Quote:My take is "cut off their supply of cash." - DT How? Do you really think that money passes through corporate hands ONLY because of government? Do you really think that getting rid of government will get rid of corporate power? Really? Really???? Unbelievable.-Signy
Friday, August 19, 2011 3:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Who says they don't?
Friday, August 19, 2011 5:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Quote:My take is "cut off their supply of cash." - DT How? Do you really think that money passes through corporate hands ONLY because of government? Do you really think that getting rid of government will get rid of corporate power? Really? Really???? Unbelievable.-Signy
Friday, August 19, 2011 7:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Yes, really. It has actually been repeatedly demonstrated to be so. This is how the rich get our money. When McCain was campaigning for Obama whom he worships, he called redistribution of wealth "spreading the wealth around" to try to give voters the impression that Obama would give them free money, but once in office, who did he give money to? Banks and corporations. The govt serves to redistriubte wealth, but not to the poor, rather, to the rich. The reason is that the poor have no power to influence policy. For fiscal 2012, the govt. Will now spend over four trillion dollars, taken from tax payers, ie, the people. Over 90% of that money will go to the richest 1% of americans once dispersed. Even social security, 70% of funds will go to millionaires. Over 80% of medicare will go for corporate overcharges, and all of it will go to corporations. Of nearly a trillion that will go in one form or another to defense, almost 90% will go to corporations. 100% of debt financing will go to corporations, as will all govt. Contracts.
Friday, August 19, 2011 7:49 AM
Friday, August 19, 2011 8:01 AM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I am wondering how, exactly, you propose to cut off their supply? It's not like they need government to have a continual supply of money flowing through their books. So if you would detail your proposal, I'd be very interested.
Friday, August 19, 2011 8:27 AM
Friday, August 19, 2011 8:47 AM
Friday, August 19, 2011 8:51 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: The question I have is how is it spending 100% when the Bush tax cuts added to the deficit?
Friday, August 19, 2011 8:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Want numbers? Use the google. Do the math. I'm not here to teach economics or argue with people online, I'm here to read the news and discuss it with people who aren't bound to the mainstream perspective.
Friday, August 19, 2011 9:30 AM
Friday, August 19, 2011 9:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Story The numbercrunching was discussed at length in a thread a few weeks back, we talked about each section of the budget and how it could really be trimmed of corporate welfare and welfare for the rich.
Friday, August 19, 2011 11:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: You don't win by igoring facts!
Friday, August 19, 2011 11:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: You don't win by igoring facts!
Friday, August 19, 2011 11:47 AM
Friday, August 19, 2011 1:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: You don't win by igoring facts! But you apparently think you do."
Friday, August 19, 2011 3:01 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:social security, 70% of funds will go to millionaires
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Over 80% of medicare will go for corporate overcharges
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Of nearly a trillion that will go in one form or another to defense, almost 90% will go to corporations.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:On corporations: if we buy products from them, they have our money, and we have their service, which we do when it is cheaper than doing it ourselves.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:If the govt. taxes us, steals our money and then gives it to goldman sachs as a handout, we get nothing, and there went our money. This kleptonomic scheme is making everything in america absurdly expensive because all the prices are padded with taxes every step of the way.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Also, it's funding the war machine.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:I run a business, I'm not exactly the opponent of corporations, but I don't care for a model where no bid contracts for hundreds of billions of dollars are handed to the friends of the ruling elite. I don't like a so called welfare system that according to its defenders in the democratic party gives two thirds of its cash out to the richest 2% of americans, or a medicare system that is not allowed to negotiate for drug prices and so pays $700 a bottle for the same medications that are sold in canada (and yes also new york) for $4 a bottle at a profit.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:And, before I hear anyone chirp up with "oh but the cost of R&D!" i would like to point out the toxic Lexapro is just Celexa remixed to a different aracemic proportion, a neat trick that must've cost them a penny a bottle, for which they got to kick the price up from $20 to $120. This is nonsense through and through.
Friday, August 19, 2011 3:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: What facts are I ignoring? That excessive spending is the primary cause for our deficit ?
Friday, August 19, 2011 4:42 PM
Quote:Goldman Sachs agreed to the Treasury’s request for $1.1 billion to repay warrants the government received when it invested $10 billion in the New York-based firm last October. The payment is in addition to $318 million in preferred dividends.
Friday, August 19, 2011 4:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: What facts are I ignoring? That excessive spending is the primary cause for our deficit ? No your ignoring that the Bush Tax cuts added to the deficit. That fact has been posted more then once. Also notice that I did not say they were primary cause. They are a large part of it. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Friday, August 19, 2011 5:51 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Let me know when your manual of style "how to lose friends and irritate people" comes out
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Military payroll is around 95 billion, that's readily accessible. Low prices are the result of a free market. You completely missed this, even though all the info was in your own post: you said "patent protected" which is obvious an artificial govt. price control against the free market, stifling competition. Furthermore, you freely granted legitimacy to patent protection for something that was not a novel compound. Aspirin is not $700 a bottle precisely because it is not under patent nor is it paid for by insurance of govt. So, when I say that the govt. Should have the right to negotiate for drug prices, I mean that the govt, like a corporation, is a citizen, and therefore has the rights of a citizen.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Your overcharge figures are way low. I would obvious never buy either celexa nor lexapro as both are toxic, but if drugs are $20 or $120 someone is being overcharged, if cost is $4 in ny but $400 in tx, then there is an overcharge. All medical services are filled with overcharge. The easiest way to see this is to compare internationally.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:Seriously: Take some time and look over other countries spending habtis, and actually try to take in new information and learn, rather than fish to justify positions you already hold.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove:You're missing this one. They just said they paid back in derivatives. They all did. Sure, this can become momey, but doesn't have to, it hinges on clngress granting them the power to print money. It's an absolutely absurd economic situation.
Friday, August 19, 2011 5:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: I have to say I'm with Rap on this one: the govt. Had a surplus. That means it was overcharging taxpayers. What increased the deficit were the wars and homeland security and bush's oil subsidies and his Rx drug program. Tax cuts don't add to the deficit, only borrowing money does, and yiu only borrow money when you're spending money. bush spent a lot of unnecessary money. This idea that tax cuts cost money and need to be paid for is voodoo.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL