Nice Job Obummer

as quoted from Tues. WSJ

Obamas proposed tax increases on SS/FICA?Medicare over the next three years will total 69% of taxable income for a person making $70k/year.

Canada already has lower corp. taxes and the US corp. tax will go up 5% in 2013. Corp. will begin fleeing our country next year. By the way corporations actually employ people who pay taxes and buy stuff. Say goodbye to any kind of economic recovery for the next 7 years.
Keep voting liberal and our kids will have tax rates of 75% to pay off debt. The gov. will actually give you an allowance to live on.

Is this true? The US is raising taxes to that high? 69 percent? I donot read that journal but I think that sound crazy.

You shoud all come to Mexico!

No, it's not true. TxFishKiller is what we call "factually challenged" and has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I'd have to see the source of this nonsense he's posted in order to comment on it directly, but...

Going by tax rates alone would be a honest appraisal in most countries. By those standards we are second only to Japan at a little better than 39% at the top tier income levels when you combine federal and state. The reality is that most corporations pay between 4-25% due to various loopholes, subsidies and write-offs that most countries do not allow. Some of the biggest and most profitable U.S. companies don't pay any Federal tax at all, and in fact get huge refunds at years-end despite profits in the billions. At 4-25% that puts us near bottom the list. I might also add that corporations are currently paying some of the lowest amounts in all U.S. history as a percentage of the country's GDP.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/253098/CORPORATE-TAXES.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora..._United_States

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ta...ax-revenue-pie

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/...ative-tax-rate

Well lookie what I found.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...352153776.html

This article happens to be very similar to what TxFishKiller based his comments on, and also happens to be written by the same moron I factually debased and tore apart the last time TxFishKiller attempted to quote him. For those of you not familiar Michael Boskin, he chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under George Jr., essentially making him one of the key people who caused the economic turmoil that resulted under the Bush regime. If you're taking economic advice from this dipshit, I have some credit default swaps I will be happy to sell you.

That said, let's get on with the debasing and shredding....

Right off the bat he's failed.

"Two problems arise when marginal tax rates are raised. First, as college students learn in Econ 101, higher marginal rates cause real economic harm."

What college, where Michael? Under Clinton, the marginal tax rate was 4.6 points higher than it has been over the last twelve years. We not only had record growth under Clinton, but record job creation as well. In fact if you go back in time all the way through 1913, you see this in just about every case. Every single time tax rates have been lowered under a Republican president in the last 40 years, we've ran up deficits, lowered or stalled growth, increased unemployment and ultimately caused recession.

Michael continues, "blah blah blah", marginal tax rates... that only affect 1.5% of the total population of the United States. Then he comes to this....

"So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%."

Again, FAIL! No mention that first, the 0.9% tax increase is only on the top 1.5% of the population overall (full disclosure, it's actually about 6% in California, which happens to also be the 8th largest economy in the world) . He also fails to mention, as anyone who's ever filed a tax return knows, State taxes are deductible! Going back to my original statement; most people do not pay anywhere near the tax rates as designated, his numbers are fictional at best, delusional at worst. He then goes on to use a California teacher's average salary of $60,000 a year taxed at 25%. HA! That same teacher was being taxed at 31% under Clinton and doing just fine. You know what that teacher would have been taxed under Nixon back in 1974? A whopping 62%! Historical tax rates can be found here. Take a look and quit your bitching.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

He is right about one thing, the cost of Social Security and Medicare will continue to rise. Medicare is a gimme by actually dealing with the cost of healthcare as Obama has made a decent first first step to do. We could save an estimated $50 billion a year in Medicare fraud alone if dealt with. Social Security however is another matter. I think we can start talking about how we're going to pay for future Social Security just as soon as our government can explain to us why they've sent $18 billion to Pakistan over the last 10 years, why they give $20 billion on oil subsidies to oil companies making record profits every year.

chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under George Jr., essentially making him one of the key people who caused the economic turmoil that resulted under the Bush regime. Originally Posted by F-Sharp

You may ( or may not) be right in your interpretation of what fishkiller posted in links, or anyone else in other threads with politics involved.

but Bush has been gone, it is Obama's job and deal now and the problem is not being fixed. We are worse off as a nation, the outlook not great.

instead of hearing Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush from the liberals when will we hear ' This is the problem, this is how we are going to fix it' and leave Bush out.

On another note, shoot the message, not the messenger. I think what Rachel Maddow and Alan Colmes say is skewed but I don't disrepect them and call them challenged, retarded, say they have no clue to what they are talking about. They do, they just report it differently.

Even MSNBC noted we need to look at Canada as a way to reposition ourselves in the global economy as a super economic power and fix our issues internally, many liberals are starting to worry about our direction now.

There are folks in government who worked for the Carter Administration and other administrations since, many working for both R and D over the years. Just because one person may have worked with a failed administration in the past doesn't make them idiots and incapable of performing well in another administration years later.

Obama is driving the bus we are all passengers on, Bush had the keys taken away years ago and he no longer has them, he isn't on the bus, he is retired in TX halfway across the country. I'm not defending Bush, just saying he is gone.

Fish and/or F Sharp may be correct, incorrect or partially correct and I am not up to date on all the fine details but I do know one thing, America is hurting, the outlook for the future of the children and grandchildren is not great and only one person sits in the Oval Office now and has for 3+ years.

and that person is the Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama.

Well lookie what I found.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...352153776.html

For those of you not familiar Michael Boskin, he chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under George Jr., essentially making him one of the key people who caused the economic turmoil that resulted under the Bush regime. Originally Posted by F-Sharp

FALSE > Boskin was never involved in the George Jr. administration in any way that I can find. Please refrain from calling fellow posters "factually challenged" when you yourself struggle with facts so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Boskin

Eh, big deal. So he got the Bushes mixed up. Boskin did head the Council of Economic Advisors under GHWB instead of GWB. He was off by an H.

With all due respect, if one intends on besmirching Mr Boskin with a lengthy diatribe regarding his involvement in a certain administration it might be better received if Boskin were actually involved with that administration......just saying.......

Still, F-Sharps' post does not misrepresent Mr. Boskins views and predisposed opinions nor their degree of agreement with Txfishkiller's original post. The substance of that point is still true. To insist that it is justified to completely dismiss a point that is true over an error in attribution, i.e., serving in the GHWB administration instead of the GWB administration (as if the son had views and goals that were consistently diametrically opposed to those of his father) could be considered in some quarters to be unnecessarily pedantic.

FALSE > Boskin was never involved in the George Jr. administration in any way that I can find. Please refrain from calling fellow posters "factually challenged" when you yourself struggle with facts so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Boskin Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

I apologize if my information is incorrect, and I have to admit I am rather confused. I've read in a number of sources that he indeed worked for GWB, and perhaps I had seen some other references for GWHB an mixed the two up. I guess I stand corrected...?, but it appears to me he was heavily involved in both Father and Son's presidencies. You be the judge.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-10-1...t-hard-landing

"Michael Boskin disgraced himself as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush..."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-10-1...t-hard-landing

Under the first President George Bush, from 1989 to 1993, Boskin was chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, Boskin helped put together his economic platform.

http://www.slate.com/id/82463/

"George W. Bush's campaign tries to hide consigliere Karl Rove. Bush economics adviser Michael Boskin is nearly invisible. And when was the last time you read a profile of Paul Wolfowitz, one of Bush's foreign policy honchos?"

F-Flat appears to be very young or has never taken and passed any kind of economics, or if he is a muscian he slept thru class. get back to me when your 50 or have a degree in economics. i do him/her give credit for being engaged in our current situation

F-Flat appears to be very young or has never taken and passed any kind of economics, or if he is a muscian he slept thru class. get back to me when your 50 or have a degree in economics. i do him/her give credit for being engaged in our current situation Originally Posted by Txfishkiller

Once again, wrong on all counts. I am not quite 50, but close. No degree in economics, but college-educated. Subjects I focused most on in school besides my major included criminal justice, anthropology, politics, and history. I'd be curious to know what you studied in college, and what is your degree in?

As I've told you many times, I encourage you to challenge and dispute anything I post. You might just learn something by doing so. These blanket, unfounded, and completely incorrect statements of yours are easily dismissed and don't help your cause in the least.

it is Obama's job and deal now and the problem is not being fixed. We are worse off as a nation, the outlook not great. Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

Alright Kosher, let me ask you and anyone else who happens to agree with this statement...

What exactly do you think Obama should be doing to correct our current problems? We know the stimulus created roughly 1.4 - 3.3 million jobs, but that's barely enough to match the jobs that have been sent overseas in the last decade or so. It doesn't make up for the jobs lost at home and unemployment is still in the 9% range. We also know the stimulus pumped $282 billion in the form of tax cuts back in to the economy, yet it's still rather stagnant. I think you also need to consider that it took eight years for us to be "worse off as a nation". What do you consider a reasonable and realistic timeframe to recover from being "worse off"?

Now, I think you need to quantify what "worse off as a nation" actually means. We know we've had some private sector job growth, and we know that average wages have increased about 2.5% as of 2010, and another 2.9% in 2011. If you ask me, our current problems basically amount to high unemployment and a rather large deficit. I assume you and I will disagree on what we believe should or could be done, but it seems to me that he's already tried to address these problems and has essentially been cock-blocked by Congress at every step. At very least, he's had to compromise to the point of ineffectiveness, which for the most part happens to be why I am not a big fan of his these days.

What exactly do you suppose he should be doing that he hasn't already done? We know through Reagan, Bush, and now Obama that tax cuts don't do shit to stimulate our economy or create jobs. We also know through simple math that reducing spending is not going to be enough to solve our deficit problem.

It's one thing to say he's not doing anything, or what he's doing is not working. It's a whole different thing entirely to understand the problems and what possible solutions are available. So let's have it, if you had his job, what would you do different?

Everybody needs to look at the 1920 Depression which was worse than the Great Depression. The gov't did the right thing by cutting spending and taxes and letting the markets correct themselves. I am sorry but when you are in debt you can not spend your way out of it. I don't care if you are a democrat or republican.

Our problem is that the idiots in charge all have responsibility in this.

Everybody needs to look at the 1920 Depression which was worse than the Great Depression. The gov't did the right thing by cutting spending and taxes and letting the markets correct themselves. Originally Posted by mgohara

Em, not sure you got your facts straight, but you might want to read up a bit on something called "The New Deal".

"The foregoing projects, and others, were expensive, and the government was not taking in enough revenue to avoid deficit spending. To fund all the new legislation, government spending rose. Spending in 1916 was $697 million; in 1936 it was $9 billion. The government modified taxes to tap wealthy people the most, who could take it in stride most easily. The deficit was made up in part by raising taxes and borrowing money through the sale of government bonds. Meanwhile, the national debt climbed to unprecedented heights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1851.html

Speaking of the Great Depression, anyone see any similarities here? Many economists have speculated two major causes of the depression besides the market crash in 1929 included debt deflation and the lop-sided distribution of wealth at the time. It would seem that today we're just one bad day on Wall Street away from being in the same deep shit all over again. Incidentally, this is what Obama is referring to when he talks about the redistribution of wealth. It's not some communist plot he's concocted to defeat capitalism, as the party of tea might want you to believe.