Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1610 times:
With all the "discussions" on the top 2% getting another tax break at the top bracket I fund this interesting and ironic:
Quote: In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”
So how many people agree with the logic of adding a small amount in every paycheck so it will be spent? Did you notice? Do you really care? Would you be happy to see it not renewed in another tax law if your sacrifice will help keep that top tax bracket lower that the rate most people actually pay?
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 1597 times:
Yeah, I read that article. Went back to my pay advices and found....that I'm paying ~$23.53 more a month in FED TAX than I was in 2008 (adjusted for changes in pay and 401K deductions). Not a big deal, but my taxes went up, not down.
Again, how is not getting a tax increase somehow a tax break? Where is the proof that 39.6% (80+% all-in) is somehow the "correct", God-given tax rate, and that any deviations from it are "breaks"?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2): gain, how is not getting a tax increase somehow a tax break?
The top tax tier will not go above where it was before the TEMPORARY Bush tax cut. Bush signed that law - remember? The law end at the end of 2011.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2): Where is the proof that 39.6% (80+% all-in) is somehow the "correct", God-given tax rate, and that any deviations from it are "breaks"?
Don't know where you pulled in the 80% - certainly not from the tax experts who make a very good living, thank you very much, helping the top earners take tax effective approaches to incomes & revenues.
And the 39.5% is far better than the 90% the Conservative Republicans maintained during the 50s. Then a Democrat was elected President.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1557 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3): The top tax tier will not go above where it was before the TEMPORARY Bush tax cut. Bush signed that law - remember? The law end at the end of 2011
2010. Ken, we are in a recession. You do not raise taxes in a recession. That is rule number 1. You most certainly do not raises taxes in a recession on the producers. You know, the employers. The people that own the factories and the stores and the corner bodegas and the small businesses and the big businesses.
In a recession, you find a way to get these folks to spend more money and get that money into the economy. Giving it to the government is the same as pissing into the wind. Stimulus proved that.
It is well within the power of Congress and the president to make those tax cuts permanent.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3): And the 39.5% is far better than the 90% the Conservative Republicans maintained during the 50s. Then a Democrat was elected President.
Which no one paid. Armies of lawyers and accountants ensured that all but the most stupid avoided those confiscatory tax rates. Why did tax revenues go up when JFK reduced the top marginal rate? Because it was no longer in the best interest of the high income earner to avoid the tax by paying his accountants and lawyers. It was cheaper to pay at the lower rate.
But you just keep on beating that class warfare drum. People aren't listening.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3260 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): So how many people agree with the logic of adding a small amount in every paycheck so it will be spent? Did you notice? Do you really care? Would you be happy to see it not renewed in another tax law if your sacrifice will help keep that top tax bracket lower that the rate most people actually pay?
I thought it wasa pretty nifry idea. Especially since it does accomplish what the Government wants. An injection into the economy. I get paid twice a month, so 24 patchecks. 24 into 400 means i got about 16.67 more per paycheck. Hardly a lot of money considering my pay, but it goes unnoticed and is part of the funds. If I am saving it, I am saving it. If it had been a straight out $400 check I would have probably put it right into savings/investments for my kids. The nice thing is that I will get the $400 check as part of my refund since my wife didn't work this year. Like every sane person out there, I like lower taxes. However I understand that we have federal budgets to meet. It would be nice to get the politicians to meet us half way with some budget reductions to go along with the tax increases with the eventual goal to be a balanced budget with no need for deficit spending. It's going to be an ugly road, and no matter how each party approaches it( cut the budget/increase taxes) there is going to be pain felt all over the place.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 1): Yeah, I read that article. Went back to my pay advices and found....that I'm paying ~$23.53 more a month in FED TAX than I was in 2008 (adjusted for changes in pay and 401K deductions). Not a big deal, but my taxes went up, not down.
That's not really a fair statement then. Your taxes went up because you probably got more pay and put less into the 401K, or some other combination that resulted in a higher net pay.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2): Again, how is not getting a tax increase somehow a tax break? Where is the proof that 39.6% (80 % all-in) is somehow the "correct", God-given tax rate, and that any deviations from it are "breaks"?
It's not the correct one. It is just a higher braket that brings in more money. Let's put it this way.
Tiger Woods makes 100 Million a year. Tiger would pay currently around 30 Million in taxes
Joe the plumber makes 80 thousand a year. Joe the plumber will probably pay after deductions 5 or 6 thousand in federal taxes.
If we get Tiger to pay 4.6% more in taxes then tiger pays 4.6 million more.this is equivalent to 8,000 or so Joe the plumbers.
So if anyone should be paying it is the upper 2%,
Durring WW2 though , the highest tax brackets paid over 90% so there is no fixed god given rate.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): In a recession, you find a way to get these folks to spend more money and get that money into the economy. Giving it to the government is the same as pissing into the wind. Stimulus proved that.
the governemnt employs people and gives contractors work. Cutting pay to the governmennt will not fix enemployment.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): Ken, we are in a recession. You do not raise taxes in a recession. That is rule number 1.
That appears to be an indirection admission that you need to live with annual budget deficits during a recession. There is no doubt that the national "safety net" is used more, tax revenues go down as unemployment goes up. Cutting spending drastically simply increases the unemployment, closed businesses, etc. and deepens the recession.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): You most certainly do not raises taxes in a recession on the producers. You know, the employers. The people that own the factories and the stores and the corner bodegas and the small businesses and the big businesses.
It is not difficult for the producers to understand the difference between business taxes and personal taxes. Obama brings in accelerated depreciation (under 179) and the people you are talking about - the producers - understand the potential for reducing business :profits through the immediate write-off of capital expenditures, delaying any taxes until later years.
Your argument also supports the idea that dividends should be considered an expense for a corporation and not free income for the shareholders. That opens up more funds for R&D, capital expenditures, etc. It also does not result in the double taxing of income traditionally associated with dividends.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): In a recession, you find a way to get these folks to spend more money and get that money into the economy.
Like accelerated depreciation in their business?
The top producers, especially the top 1%, aren't going to go out shopping at the local mall any more then during the Bush years, Their spending patterns are fairly set.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): It is well within the power of Congress and the president to make those tax cuts permanent.
Just like it was in the power of Congress to enact a new law that will keep 98% of the taxpayers at about the same level (with or without the "hidden Obama tax cut" and have this live for 3 or 4 years. Then review it depending on the economic situation at that time.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4): Which no one paid. Armies of lawyers and accountants ensured that all but the most stupid avoided those confiscatory tax rates.
And you don't think they have their armies today? And more lobbyists?
Quoting casinterest (Reply 5): Durring WW2 though , the highest tax brackets paid over 90% so there is no fixed god given rate.
That is the secret. We had a war and FDR didn't go for the Guns & Butter game that Bush did. (And Bush did throw in the Cake as well.)
But the rate lasted well past the war as it was clear that we needed to spend money to help rebuild in Europe and the Pacific after the war. That was important and it has shown to be money well spent.
We also needed to spend money on the Vets via the best GI Bill this country has produced. Money exceptionally well spent as it fueled the start of the civilian achievements of the Greatest Generation.
Obviously the Conservatives will never allow a Marshall Plan for the US as it doesn't put money in their pockets THIS year. And vets are only taken care of because of the political problems if they were totally ignored.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 5): That's not really a fair statement then. Your taxes went up because you probably got more pay and put less into the 401K, or some other combination that resulted in a higher net pay.
No, I controlled for my stagnant pay and the increase I made to my 401K and the increase in my healthcare costs. I assure you, I paid more in taxes (so did my wife).
Quoting casinterest (Reply 5): the governemnt employs people and gives contractors work. Cutting pay to the governmennt will not fix enemployment
While it's true that the government employs contractors to do work and keeps them employed, that money is largely inefficiently used. Keeping money in the private sector is a much more efficient use of capital and allows the conomy to grow. Now, if the government were to spend money on growing infra-structure (you know, stimulating endeavors) it may be different. but, stimulus money went to pet projects and 'shovel ready' (oh, wait, those don't exist) projects that just wasted the money.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6): The top producers, especially the top 1%, aren't going to go out shopping at the local mall any more then during the Bush years, Their spending patterns are fairly set.
No they don't go to the mall...they buy buildings and factories and make capital investments in their corporations. They also buy planes, yachts and houses among other things. All of which help grow the economy.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6): That is the secret. We had a war and FDR didn't go for the Guns & Butter game that Bush did. (And Bush did throw in the Cake as well.)
You might want to go review what "guns versus butter" actually means, because you've been referencing it incorrectly at every opportunity.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7): I assure you, I paid more in taxes (so did my wife).
So where did it increase? If the tax tables were changed to allow for lower deductions. Did your state taxes go up? Did you change your deductions because of previous years issues?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7): (oh, wait, those don't exist)
Does all over TUL, which is a very stronghold for Conservatives..
Why didn't your guys in DC bring home the bacon to your town?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7): No they don't go to the mall...they buy buildings and factories and make capital investments in their corporations.
When they spend within their business their personal profit/taxes aren't impacted. But the accelerated depreciation IS.
As far as those buying personal jets or yachts at the upper end, they will buy these anyway. And their tax attorneys and financial advisors will ensure they have the cash.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8): You might want to go review what "guns versus butter" actually means, because you've been referencing it incorrectly at every opportunity.
Guns & Butter in my lifetime has referred to increased military spending (especially during wartime) without lowering other spending, or increasing taxes. Classics were the tax rates in the 50s where taxes continued from the 40s to pay for the after effects, and in LBJs Administration to pay for Vietnam & the Great Society at the same time.
Bush pulled the addition of "Cake" into the equation with not only both a war (Guns) and non-miitary programs (Butter) and then he tossed in a Tax Cut that was really beneficial for the top tier (Cake).
I'll assume you can figure out where I pulled the Cake from.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9): Guns & Butter in my lifetime has referred to increased military spending (especially during wartime) without lowering other spending, or increasing taxes.
That may be your understanding, but the model actually applies to an economy as a whole. It does not fit a complex market economy or even a mixed economy. That's why it has no real world application and no one discusses it outside of an Econ 101 class.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9): As far as those buying personal jets or yachts at the upper end, they will buy these anyway.
History would adamantly disagree.
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.
Hell of a "signature" tax break. The deficits run by Obama and Co from 2009-2010 added $9,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the land. Maybe no one noticed the tax break - neigh, signature tax break - because virtually no ones economic situation is improving.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9): Why didn't your guys in DC bring home the bacon to your town?
Oh, they did. They tore up 10 miles (5 both ways) of 4 lane, concrete interestate and put down asphalt. Very stimulative. They are putting new curbs in (oh boy). What else? I'm trying to recall all those nifty signs around town...there are so many of them.
Oh yeah, box lunches were provided for the elderly. Very stimulative. A worthy cause, that I have contributed to in the past, but not what Stimulus was supposed to be about, was it?
My FED TAX deduction on the pay advice was higher than it should have been when I controlled for the other factors.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9): When they spend within their business their personal profit/taxes aren't impacted. But the accelerated depreciation IS.
As far as those buying personal jets or yachts at the upper end, they will buy these anyway. And their tax attorneys and financial advisors will ensure they have the cash.
Ken, trying to get you to understand that higher taxes, in any economic range, reduces economic activity and depresses any economy is like trying to get through a brick wall with a ball peen hammer.
The more money the government gets, the less that there is available to the private sector. The less available to the private sector, the less economic activity.
If government spending was all that you guys say it is, Stimulus I, II, II, etc should have provided us with a booming economy within a few months of the spending. But they haven't. We are in a stagnant economy, with stagnant unemployment and shaky confidence across the board. The only difference between the Carter years and the Obama years is that inflation hasn't gone screaming through the roof, yet.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
I got my "tax break." It was literally 19 cents. LOL
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2):
Again, how is not getting a tax increase somehow a tax break? Where is the proof that 39.6% (80+% all-in) is somehow the "correct", God-given tax rate, and that any deviations from it are "breaks"?
The God-given tax rate is 10% If God Himself required only 10%, why should any state demand more than that?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7774 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 9): So where did it increase? If the tax tables were changed to allow for lower deductions. Did your state taxes go up? Did you change your deductions because of previous years issues?
I noticed the same thing as fr8mech. However my refund was higher. Maybe the tax cut was there, but the refund is a windfall, whereas your monthly paycheck is what you actually plan your budget on.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10): That's why it has no real world application and no one discusses it outside of an Econ 101 class.
Which is probably why the Bush Administration didn't bother thinking about his Guns & Butter & Cake approach to the economic management of this country.
And obviously no conservative economist will ever admit that it was a major part in the Great Recession starting. Econ 101 can't apply to the real world? Too simplistic?
Sure looks like it did matter. Must be W's magic.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11): Ken, trying to get you to understand that higher taxes, in any economic range, reduces economic activity and depresses any economy is like trying to get through a brick wall with a ball peen hammer.
Trying to get me to rejoice in continual tax cuts while the deficit is rising is not going to happen.
I can support a tax cut for a few years for most tax brackets, but feel it is foolish to toss in the candy for the top bracket.
And I can support the other brackets being cut while the economy is in the pits. Then we need to bring it back to levels that will bring down the deficit.
If you want to cut spending then let's be intelligent. Does the military really need the chefs from Haliburton to fix their meals when they go to war? That's as idiotic as the $700 hammer or $200 toilet seat.
And let's look at the level of civilian employment in the DoD. And let's hold off the Tanker until we can actually afford it.
Of course all the federal jobs you manage to cut will not only reduce the taxes they pay, but will toss them onto unemployment, food stamps, etc. Still going to cost money so maybe we should leave that to the Republican/Tea Party folks - they can work their witchcraft.
Want local control fo the schools? Let's let the states and cities pay for it. Cut Federal funding. See how that works for the local people seeing the bill.
Make dramatic cuts in the government and see what happens to the economy. Otherwise be ready for more taxes or more debt.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11): We are in a stagnant economy, with stagnant unemployment and shaky confidence across the board. The only difference between the Carter years and the Obama years is that inflation hasn't gone screaming through the roof, yet.
The country has been in a sorry situation since Big George and Little Dick screwed things up beyond belief. The Great Recession isn't going to be cleared up in 18 months. Probably not in 5 years.
As for the Chere is one other difference: Carter didn't have W delivering a Great Recession in his lap on day one of his administration. Carter did, however, have a the country still working out of the turmoil of Watergate and some major changes in the Middle East. Remember Iran?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Maybe the tax cut was there, but the refund is a windfall
As per the article the cut was not supposed to be hitting in a blaze of glory - it was a small, continuous prod.
Quoting D L X (Reply 15): HOW are you going to PAY for this tax cut? Are you going to borrow the billions of dollars necessary to continue the tax cut from the Chinese?
Nope, they'll just end Social Security and Medicare - until, of course, they need it.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1269 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 15): HOW are you going to PAY for this tax cut?
You have it backwards if you think that you "pay" for a shortfall in revenue. You don't account it as a cost. But as a solution, maybe the government could actually balance its expenditures around its revenue?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): Econ 101 can't apply to the real world? Too simplistic?
Most things you learn in college tend to be. That's why they call it theory. You are basically saying a two variable model can approximate the workings of a $14 trillion market economy.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): And obviously no conservative economist will ever admit that it was a major part in the Great Recession starting
Neither would a moderate, liberal, or progressive economist. Government spending didn't drive us into a recession.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): The country has been in a sorry situation since Big George and Little Dick screwed things up beyond belief. The Great Recession isn't going to be cleared up in 18 months. Probably not in 5 years.
The reality is more like Bush was an average president in an unfavorable decade. Recessions happen because our economy is based on human players. Recessions turn into depressions when our politicians think they can outsmart the other 299.9 million human players.
Signs of recovery should be evident by now. They aren't, because the last 18 months have been wasted on policies that don't work and shouldn't have been expected to work. Recovery will begin in ernest when Republicans gridlock Congress and give businesses the confidence that no more craptactular pieces of Democratic "signature legislation" will interfere with the cost of labor, capital, or energy. Not that it will matter for Obama, since the public has rapidly tired of his petulance and egotism.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1261 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 15): HOW are you going to PAY for this tax cut?
See, I don't understand this. First of all, this is not a tax cut, this is trying to avert a tax increase. Second, you 'pay' for it by cutting costs. Let's start by returning un-used stimulus money. Any TARP funds left? What about streamlining the procurement process? Let's look at the budget and cut crap out. Look at the military budget and cut out the fat. Look at Cabinet level departments and cut the fat. Demand 10% or 15% or 20% from every part of the federal budget. Cut to the bone.
When my income goes down, I don't take out loans, I cut crap out of my budget.
We also need to look at the revenue side of the equation. Historically, how has the US increased revenue? Through tax cuts. It started with JFK. Now, I'm not saying we need to cut taxes right now. Something else is happening. There is plenty of cash out there, but not enough economic activity in the private sector. Why? Because of uncertainty due to actual, perceived and anticipated government interference and regulation. This weighs on the producers as well as the consumers. We can not make sound financial, economic and business decisions because we don't know what the government is going to do.
When The House returns to the GOP, the best we can hope for is to gridlock the government and put the brakes on. With any luck, that will remove some of the uncertainty from the equation and, hopefully, we'll see some real recovery. Ironically, this will make Obama look good. BUt, you take the bad with the good.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17): But as a solution, maybe the government could actually balance its expenditures around its revenue?
This is exactly the point I just made! The tax cuts were budgeted for a certain period of time by considering other things on the budget as counterbalanced. So, what things are you going to counterbalance to pay for the tax cuts to be continued?
Don't demagogue this. Don't just repeat what you've heard on cable news. It's an actual problem that deserves better than parroting self-centered politicians and media pundits with their own agendas.
This tax cut is so huge that it cannot be balanced merely by cutting spending. You'd have to borrow.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1223 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18): When my income goes down, I don't take out loans, I cut crap out of my budget.
And if you get sick? I mean, really sick, like cancer or something? How do you cut the crap out of your budget to pay for things that are well beyond what your income ever was? You don't. You have to borrow - your life literally depends on it.
Obviously, if you have the choice, cancer or not having cancer, you'd choose to not have cancer. So why would the federal government choose to put itself in the position where it is forced to borrow?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18): Second, you 'pay' for it by cutting costs. Let's start by returning un-used stimulus money. Any TARP funds left? What about streamlining the procurement process? Let's look at the budget and cut crap out.
Those things are like pissing in the wind. The cost of continuing the tax cut is much greater in comparison.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 20): So why would the federal government choose to put itself in the position where it is forced to borrow?
Where did I say we shouldn't borrow or, more precisely, run deficit spending? I say we need to cut the fat out of our budget, cut un-necessary programs and straighten out our financial house. I'm not one of these balanced budget, everytime guys. Government has to run deficits. But trillions is just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Quoting D L X (Reply 20): Those things are like pissing in the wind. The cost of continuing the tax cut is much greater in comparison.
no, they might be worth doing. They just won't solve the problem. It's like if you were complaining about drunk drivers killing people on the roads and the person you were talking to said "then wear a seat belt." Obviously wearing a seat belt is a good idea, but it don't solve the drunk driving problem.
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1125 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17): Recovery will begin in ernest when Republicans gridlock Congress and give businesses the confidence that no more craptactular pieces of Democratic "signature legislation" will interfere with the cost of labor, capital, or energy.
I don't think Republicans can engender any confidence in the economy either. The economy in the USA cannot be rebuilt properly because both parties will not together work to repair it.
More regulation on finance industry MUST happen. There must be more stringent reporting and oversight requirements so that the huge financial collapses don't get to the point where they are so gigantic - because the reporting requirements won't allow it.
The solution isn't one that only the Republicans or only the Democrats will deliver. It needs to be a sweeping change that involves both sides working collectively together. And unfortunately - neither of them will do it, because it's simply easier to gridlock and fillibuster things, and then blame the government of the day for failing to do anything.
First thing, there must be rules put in place to stop fillibustering tactics in the halls of power. Those tactics really don't deliver any benefits to anyone. It's a huge waste of time.
The Tea Party people have a hatred of big government ideas and policies, but it's the lack of some of the more stringent controls of the finance industry that have allowed this enormous mess to happen. (along with the hugely expensive wars overseas but the wars are something that are a force majeur happening).
25 fr8mech: And, what is our drunk driving problem? What do you consider the underlying reason why our economy has not rebounded from the Pelosi/Bush/Reid Recess
26 D L X: No sir, they really don't. The math doesn't change one bit if you are adding -x or subtracting +x. In other words, don't dodge the issue. How are you
27 Pyrex: More regulation? The financial industry is, and has been for a very, very long time, one of the most highly regulated industry of all time, and what
28 DfwRevolution: We don't need bipartisanship to recover because we are not a command economy. Recovery must come from the private sector. Right now, businesses are n
29 dxing: Just goes to show how far the left has to warp the definition of "cut" to make it satisfy them. This was not a tax "cut". That would imply that peopl
30 Pyrex: Just this week we turned down a deal that could have made us tens of millions of dollars because of one factor, political risk. The country we would
31 Andaman: I wish the all A:netters started their non aviation threads the way we all could see what we are talking about... so here its a question of taxes in U
32 CompensateMe: Federal Taxes have not increased. My pay and benefit contributions have remained stagnant since 2007; comparing multiple paychecks from 2010 to compa
33 fr8mech: Hmmmm, let me re-run my numbers..........yup, my FED TAX went up. My pay was stagnant. I increased my 401K deduction by 1% (that lowers may taxable i
34 CompensateMe: No, according to the information you provided, your withholdings changed. You can increase/decrease your withholding deductions at will; while it wil
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3537 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
