FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33619
Most Americans don't understand that TAXATION is not the problem...BlueHen86 wrote:Of course people are going to blame the GOP.
60% of Americans side with Obama and want taxes on the rich to be raised.
My guess is that the 60% who side with Obama don't consider themselves to be rich, so they are saying that they want Obama to tax someone else in order to fix the problem.
That's too deep for analjelly.BlueHen86 wrote:Of course people are going to blame the GOP.
60% of Americans side with Obama and want taxes on the rich to be raised.
My guess is that the 60% who side with Obama don't consider themselves to be rich, so they are saying that they want Obama to tax someone else in order to fix the problem.
Also too deep for analjelly.Chizzang wrote:Most Americans don't understand that TAXATION is not the problem...BlueHen86 wrote:Of course people are going to blame the GOP.
60% of Americans side with Obama and want taxes on the rich to be raised.
My guess is that the 60% who side with Obama don't consider themselves to be rich, so they are saying that they want Obama to tax someone else in order to fix the problem.
There's piles and piles of Tax Revenue collected by the federal government
For the 100th time: We have a spending problem not a revenue problem
Was that double penetration?AZGrizFan wrote:Also too deep for analjelly.Chizzang wrote:
Most Americans don't understand that TAXATION is not the problem...
There's piles and piles of Tax Revenue collected by the federal government
For the 100th time: We have a spending problem not a revenue problem
Wouldn't it be more prudent to compare the Dem leaders to the GOP leaders? Looking at those numbers all it's telling me is Dems are sheep.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Are y'all still gonna dismiss polls as having a huge liberal bias like y'all did all summer (even though they nailed the election)?
Actually that might not be true...ASUG8 wrote:For every dollar in additional revenue collected (regardless of the source) spending will increase AT LEAST by a factor of 1.5. Guaranteed.
Under Bill Clinton, income tax rates rose. In fact, his critics reviled him for enacting "the biggest tax increase in American history." Yet the tax hike did not open the spending floodgates. In inflation-adjusted terms, federal outlays grew very slowly, and as a share of the economy, they shrank dramatically — to 18.2 percent from 21.4 percent, about what they were during the Eisenhower administration.
Why did that happen? Not because Clinton was a tightfisted Scrooge eager to dismantle big government, but because congressional Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, forced him into an agreement to balance the budget, which required constraints on spending.
Most conservatives are of the "starve the beast" school, which says that if you deprive the government of revenue by cutting taxes, it will be forced to shrink. That would be true if the government couldn't spend money it doesn't have. In fact, it does so year in and year out. There is no point cutting off a wayward teen's allowance if he still has your credit card.
In 2006, a study published by the late economist William Niskanen debunked this theory of spending dynamics. Niskanen, who was President Reagan's chief economist and chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, looked at the historical data and found that revenue increases actually curtailed spending growth. Revenue reductions, however, caused it to accelerate — the exact opposite of what Norquist claims.
University of Alabama political scientist Michael New later took another look at the evidence and confirmed those findings. "Like Niskanen, I find statistically significant evidence that low levels of federal revenues actually stimulate expenditure growth," he wrote in the Cato Journal in 2009.
It's not hard to see why. Americans are more likely to support a bigger federal budget if they don't have to pay the full cost each year. Tax cuts allow us to get $100 worth of programs and services for only $80. As with any commodity, price discounts increase consumption. Tax increases force us to pay something closer to the real cost of government, which dampens demand for it.
Keeping up With the KardashiansGannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
.........that is the tip of the iceberg.89Hen wrote:Keeping up With the KardashiansGannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
Big Rich Texas
Real Housewives of...
Family Jewels
Cribs
They like the liberal celebrity rich89Hen wrote:Keeping up With the KardashiansGannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
Big Rich Texas
Real Housewives of...
Family Jewels
Cribs
I said they hate them within the context that they want to tax them more and take their money. IMO, I think the advent of those shows and a latent desire to heavily tax the rich are not coincidental. People certainly like watching those shows, and from those shows they think all the rich are like the Kardashians, hence the desire to tax them more. They make for great tv (for those who watch).89Hen wrote:Keeping up With the KardashiansGannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
Big Rich Texas
Real Housewives of...
Family Jewels
Cribs
People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.GannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
TheDancinMonarch wrote:People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.GannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
Meh...TheDancinMonarch wrote:People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.GannonFan wrote:Remember, people hate the rich. Anything you do has to be with that in mind.
Round 2Chizzang wrote: Meh...
Depending on who you believe about 50% of America's wealthy inherited their money to a LARGE degree
Obama (Unlike Romney or Bush) actually embodies more of the American dream than any Republican in office
But I see your point...
That's quite a claim. You seem to have a history of making good points and not stopping there.Chizzang wrote:Meh...TheDancinMonarch wrote:
People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.
Depending on who you believe about 50% of America's wealthy inherited their money to a LARGE degree
Obama (Unlike Romney or Bush) actually embodies more of the American dream than any Republican in office
But I see your point...
89Hen wrote:That's quite a claim. You seem to have a history of making good points and not stopping there.Chizzang wrote:
Meh...
Depending on who you believe about 50% of America's wealthy inherited their money to a LARGE degree
Obama (Unlike Romney or Bush) actually embodies more of the American dream than any Republican in office
But I see your point...
That's my specialtyBecause the right totally understands the whole situation...89Hen wrote:Wouldn't it be more prudent to compare the Dem leaders to the GOP leaders? Looking at those numbers all it's telling me is Dems are sheep.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Are y'all still gonna dismiss polls as having a huge liberal bias like y'all did all summer (even though they nailed the election)?
Yes and they, D and R, have politicians, D and R to protect them from taxation so that they can maintain their wealth.Chizzang wrote:Meh...TheDancinMonarch wrote:
People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.
Depending on who you believe about 50% of America's wealthy inherited their money to a LARGE degree.
Because there is a 50% spread between Ind. and Dem. when it comes to giving Dem leaders a good grade, and considering a majority of people who ID themseleves are Dems in disguise, this is a big number.polsongrizz wrote:Because the right totally understands the whole situation...
Not really. Obama made his money from writing ostensibly autobiographical books, shaking down and suing businesses and Michelle's well-paid no-show job at a Chicago hospital.Chizzang wrote:Meh...TheDancinMonarch wrote:
People used to want to be rich but they discovered that that was too much work. So they decided that they would just use the government to steal from the rich, thereby making us all poor.
Depending on who you believe about 50% of America's wealthy inherited their money to a LARGE degree
Obama (Unlike Romney or Bush) actually embodies more of the American dream than any Republican in office
But I see your point...