Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,590
President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs. Full Story
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#114953 May 7, 2012
US has a bad economy and has worse illegal immigration than any other worse country on earth.

For last 3-1/2 years, US has suffered from the high to highest unemployment after WW2 and since the last longest depression, with highest debts on the planet in the hands of Obama.

Obama's on-the-job-training is equal to the on-the-job-destruction.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#114954 May 7, 2012
Keynes crapola started with FDRs foolishness and no presedent ever looked back as they continued to spend the country into poverty as they debt financed social spending entitlement programs to buy votes

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114955 May 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Was there a point hiding anywhere in that random burble of rhetorical questions?
If yes, it's not apparent.
Care to try stating a cogent point in clear terms, with supporting evidence to back it up?
Or was that a failed attempt to refute my earlier point, that Keynesian stimulus is erroneous policy in the present circumstances in the US? If so, it fails as a refutation also.
My point remains as stated - and unrefuted:
Keynesian stimulus is an erroneous policy response for the present US fiscal and economic situation - as 2008-2009 has clearly demonstrated. Two reasons:
1) Any Keynesian stimulus large enough to generate economic effect would have to be so large as to be beyond any realistic limits of political and fiscal feasibility - it's fantasy, and
2) Keynes himself would have to agree the evidence clearly shows Keynesian stimulus is ineffective in accelerating recovery from economic recessions resulting from fiscal crises arising from over-leveraged credit: EXACTLY the situation the US is in. Ken Rogoff, a leading authority in this field makes this one of the primary observations from his study of several centuries of financial crises - that government fiscal action doesn't have the ability to significantly shorten the deleveraging process.
Here's a particularly well-balanced article on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klei...
And please - spare us any comparisons with the Eurozone: as I've exhaustively shown previously, Europe's economic, financial, and currency structures, issues and problems are their own, and provide no sensible or useful guidance for the US. Mark my words - Sarkozy may be out in France, for example, but Hollande's economic and fiscal policies will remain indistinguishably different - it's all for show. They have NO CHOICE but to de-leverage and cut back on unsustainable government spending levels also.
TAANSTAFL, baby.
BTW: That was no article, it was book. I decided to print it out so I could go through it a couple of times. I agree it is balanced and I also think it is well written.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#114956 May 7, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you misunderstand part of Keynsian economics. It is not necessarilly spending to bring the economy back to where it should be (which I think is what you are addressing), it is also spending such as extended unemployment benefits, increased Food Stamps and things of this nature to help people through the hard times (the part I think you are not addressing.)
I don't misunderstand Keynesian economic theory at all. It is simply based upon government's presumed ability to step in and replace lagging private economic demand in a down-cycle to maintain economic growth with government spending.

These goo-goo romantic notions of yours about "helping out the poor little guy" with various forms of hand-outs have nothing to do with Keynesian economic theory - that's pure progressive foo-foo.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> I do not disagree with your first point. As to your second, it is moot I think by agreement with your first point.
What I do support is continued support to those displaced in this economy as well as infrastructure which assists business now or in the near future with more efficient, effective operations. assisting with the development of the infrastructure for NG, CNG and LNG falls into this category.
So long as Government sticks to true public infrastructure investment, I have no strong objection - but when it comes to a fundamentally incompetent and dumb-azz government getting handy "assist(ing) business now or in the near future with more efficient, effective operations. assisting with the development of the infrastructure for NG, CNG and LNG ...(etc.)" please - business doesn't need incompetent help like this. Stick to public infrastructure that the private sector can't and won't do better.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>Eurozone: England has its own currency and certainly compares with the US. Your running from this issue does not help your case. I left Greece, Spain and Portugal out of the question because on them you are correct. But you are not correct when leaving out all of the nations. Even Ireland is comparable.
Not comparable at all. The fact that the UK (and they may thank God and Maggie Thatcher for their good fortune in this)- and ONLY the UK - retained control of its own currency puts them in a better position.

But money still doesn't grow on trees. And these governments are gonna have to pay their bills - they only way they do that is by cutting government spending and growing - or inflating - their way out of the hole.

Mark my words - Hollande will do nothing different than Sarkozy, for all his posturing about ending German-driven auterity. They have no choice, and they know it.
Politics as usual

Huntington Station, NY

#114957 May 7, 2012
unbelievable, Elizabeth Warren, the shyster who pretended that she was an American Indian to get ahead is now being touted by the corrupt mainstream media as a liberal hero.

now we know what traits liberals feel are heroic, cheating and lieing to get ahead.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/...

does the Washington Post think that we are all so stupid that we don't see their blatant and corrupt bias.

unbelievable.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114958 May 7, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't misunderstand Keynesian economic theory at all. It is simply based upon government's presumed ability to step in and replace lagging private economic demand in a down-cycle to maintain economic growth with government spending.
These goo-goo romantic notions of yours about "helping out the poor little guy" with various forms of hand-outs have nothing to do with Keynesian economic theory - that's pure progressive foo-foo.
<quoted text>
So long as Government sticks to true public infrastructure investment, I have no strong objection - but when it comes to a fundamentally incompetent and dumb-azz government getting handy "assist(ing) business now or in the near future with more efficient, effective operations. assisting with the development of the infrastructure for NG, CNG and LNG ...(etc.)" please - business doesn't need incompetent help like this. Stick to public infrastructure that the private sector can't and won't do better.
<quoted text>
Not comparable at all. The fact that the UK (and they may thank God and Maggie Thatcher for their good fortune in this)- and ONLY the UK - retained control of its own currency puts them in a better position.
But money still doesn't grow on trees. And these governments are gonna have to pay their bills - they only way they do that is by cutting government spending and growing - or inflating - their way out of the hole.
Mark my words - Hollande will do nothing different than Sarkozy, for all his posturing about ending German-driven auterity. They have no choice, and they know it.
You shouold check what you think you know. How does government stimulate demand?

http://capitalisthero.com/Keynesian_Economics...

Why is a gas company going to put in a NG/CNG/LNG filling point when there are no vehicles to use the fuel? Why is a manufacturer going to go through development and pass the cost on to consumers for a vehicle that can not receive the fuel it was intended to use?

And if your plan did work, how long would it take?
Roger Edgar

AOL

#114959 May 8, 2012
Politics as Usual wrote:
<quoted text>
This is comical, but some of the left wing zealots actually believe this.
the fact is that obama is the worst president in the history of this country and one of the worst leaders in the history of the planet.
i can not even give him a grade because frankly he has not even earned an F-.
everything he has done has been exactly wrong except bin laden in which case he just went along with the military and even then he put in a memo to make sure that if things did go wrong he would be able to blame others.
this president is not a leader, real leaders don't lie about their accomplishments, or take credit for the work of others, and real leaders don't pass the buck and blame their own mistakes on other people.
but that is what this president does time after time,
he has destroyed our economy, he has buried us in debt,with his payoffs like the stimulus/kickback and the green jobs scams.
he has ripped this country apart, pitting man against woman, black against white, rich vs. poor,
and all the way he has time after time taken credit for others accomplishments.
Barack Obama is without a doubt the worst president in the history of America.
The Obama benefits from the Lefts failure to think things through. They get so excited about some social engineering thing that they wet themselves......all the while ignoring the Big Picture stuff where Obama proved incapable and ill prepared. That is the reason Biden planted that Gay Marriage stuff this week. It keeps weak minded people from focusing on Obama's failures.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#114960 May 8, 2012
Adolf Hitler began suppressing the trade unions (along with Communists and Social Democrats) in Feb of 1933 as part of his rise to power. They would attack and ransack offices, steal equipment, beat up and imprison members(usually those in leadership roles).
Towards May of '33 the trade unions began to distance themselves from the Social Democrats to preserve themselves as an entity but on May 2nd the brownshirts and SS men occupied every trade union office affiliated with the Social Democrats, took control of the newspapers and periodicals of the trade unions and seized their banks.
Trade union officials in leadership roles were either sent to concentration camps or killed outright.
The Nazi's effectively destroyed any power the trade unions had and subjugated it for their own.

Source- The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans
Dan Salazar

AOL

#114961 May 8, 2012
joe wrote:
Adolf Hitler began suppressing the trade unions (along with Communists and Social Democrats) in Feb of 1933 as part of his rise to power. They would attack and ransack offices, steal equipment, beat up and imprison members(usually those in leadership roles).
Towards May of '33 the trade unions began to distance themselves from the Social Democrats to preserve themselves as an entity but on May 2nd the brownshirts and SS men occupied every trade union office affiliated with the Social Democrats, took control of the newspapers and periodicals of the trade unions and seized their banks.
Trade union officials in leadership roles were either sent to concentration camps or killed outright.
The Nazi's effectively destroyed any power the trade unions had and subjugated it for their own.
Source- The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans
All true. And, the amazing thing is that they paid their public sector unions a fair wage not three times the going rate for the work like in soon to be insolvent obamacrat Calif.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114962 May 8, 2012
joe wrote:
Adolf Hitler began suppressing the trade unions (along with Communists and Social Democrats) in Feb of 1933 as part of his rise to power. They would attack and ransack offices, steal equipment, beat up and imprison members(usually those in leadership roles).
Towards May of '33 the trade unions began to distance themselves from the Social Democrats to preserve themselves as an entity but on May 2nd the brownshirts and SS men occupied every trade union office affiliated with the Social Democrats, took control of the newspapers and periodicals of the trade unions and seized their banks.
Trade union officials in leadership roles were either sent to concentration camps or killed outright.
The Nazi's effectively destroyed any power the trade unions had and subjugated it for their own.
Source- The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans
Sounds familiar to some of the things happening today, doesn't it?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114963 May 8, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Was there a point hiding anywhere in that random burble of rhetorical questions?
If yes, it's not apparent.
Care to try stating a cogent point in clear terms, with supporting evidence to back it up?
Or was that a failed attempt to refute my earlier point, that Keynesian stimulus is erroneous policy in the present circumstances in the US? If so, it fails as a refutation also.
My point remains as stated - and unrefuted:
Keynesian stimulus is an erroneous policy response for the present US fiscal and economic situation - as 2008-2009 has clearly demonstrated. Two reasons:
1) Any Keynesian stimulus large enough to generate economic effect would have to be so large as to be beyond any realistic limits of political and fiscal feasibility - it's fantasy, and
2) Keynes himself would have to agree the evidence clearly shows Keynesian stimulus is ineffective in accelerating recovery from economic recessions resulting from fiscal crises arising from over-leveraged credit: EXACTLY the situation the US is in. Ken Rogoff, a leading authority in this field makes this one of the primary observations from his study of several centuries of financial crises - that government fiscal action doesn't have the ability to significantly shorten the deleveraging process.
Here's a particularly well-balanced article on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klei...
And please - spare us any comparisons with the Eurozone: as I've exhaustively shown previously, Europe's economic, financial, and currency structures, issues and problems are their own, and provide no sensible or useful guidance for the US. Mark my words - Sarkozy may be out in France, for example, but Hollande's economic and fiscal policies will remain indistinguishably different - it's all for show. They have NO CHOICE but to de-leverage and cut back on unsustainable government spending levels also.
TAANSTAFL, baby.
Tax cuts are stimulus and therefore Keynesian. Your right, they did not work and need to be done away with. Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs in one year than bush did in 8 years.

France and other countries have a choice, leave the Euro. Greece most likely will. The voters are turning away from austerity.

And yes, France and some other Euro nations while different still lend lessons to us. Austerity equals recession is an example. More people out of work, lower tax revenues, etc.....
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#114964 May 8, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Tax cuts are stimulus and therefore Keynesian. Your right, they did not work and need to be done away with.
Not so fast, kemosabe.

You're now advocating INCREASING taxes in the middle of a weak economic recovery - and there is no debate among economists that increasing taxes in the first analysis directly suppresses economic growth. Patently dumb thing to do - if your true objective is economic growth and job creation.

There _might_ be an economic case to be made for increased taxes based upon offsetting stimulative secondary affects of de-leveraging the public sector ---> reduced borrowing costs individuals and businesses ----> increased demand, but when the Fed and Timmah are already throwing free money at banks as fast as they can print it, it's hard to see how even this case can be made.

In any event - the burden of presenting a rational and compelling economic case for raising taxes rests on you - and you definitely have not yet made it.

Frankly, your Socialist Anti-corporate ideological underwear is showing again here, OKB - you seem to be a selective fan of Keynesian stimulus - favoring only those 'Keynesian' stimuli that promote your REAL interest and objective, i.e. growing the GOVERNMENT SECTOR and PUBLIC SECTOR jobs rather than the economy as a whole. In fact you want to use taxes as a PUNITIVE tool to REPRESS growth of private corporations your neo-Luddite ideology blames for "destroying jobs," right?

So you're an advocate of Keynesian economics only insofar as you find it convenient to trot out as a stalking horse to promote your true agenda - EXPANDING GOVERNMENT'S SHARE OF THE ECONOMY IN THE US.

Busted. You're too obvious.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs in one year than bush did in 8 years.
Yes, Total Nonfarm Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) increased very much more during Clinton's 8 years than Bush's - no question.

However, there is no basis whatsoever for your crediting Clinton's tax increases with any causal relationship to job growth.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
France and other countries have a choice, leave the Euro. Greece most likely will. The voters are turning away from austerity.
And yes, France and some other Euro nations while different still lend lessons to us. Austerity equals recession is an example. More people out of work, lower tax revenues, etc.....
Only relevant to other Euro-style socialistic economies that are dominated to a much greater degree by public sector employment and Unions than is the US's.

That may be your dream for the US - turning us into France or Greece - but hopefully such "progressive" nonsense will continue to be rejected by mainstream American voters at the polls long into the future.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#114965 May 9, 2012
Dan Salazar wrote:
<quoted text>
All true. And, the amazing thing is that they paid their public sector unions a fair wage not three times the going rate for the work like in soon to be insolvent obamacrat Calif.
Your point is...?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114967 May 9, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast, kemosabe.
You're now advocating INCREASING taxes in the middle of a weak economic recovery - and there is no debate among economists that increasing taxes in the first analysis directly suppresses economic growth. Patently dumb thing to do - if your true objective is economic growth and job creation.
There _might_ be an economic case to be made for increased taxes based upon offsetting stimulative secondary affects of de-leveraging the public sector ---> reduced borrowing costs individuals and businesses ----> increased demand, but when the Fed and Timmah are already throwing free money at banks as fast as they can print it, it's hard to see how even this case can be made.
In any event - the burden of presenting a rational and compelling economic case for raising taxes rests on you - and you definitely have not yet made it.
Frankly, your Socialist Anti-corporate ideological underwear is showing again here, OKB - you seem to be a selective fan of Keynesian stimulus - favoring only those 'Keynesian' stimuli that promote your REAL interest and objective, i.e. growing the GOVERNMENT SECTOR and PUBLIC SECTOR jobs rather than the economy as a whole. In fact you want to use taxes as a PUNITIVE tool to REPRESS growth of private corporations your neo-Luddite ideology blames for "destroying jobs," right?
So you're an advocate of Keynesian economics only insofar as you find it convenient to trot out as a stalking horse to promote your true agenda - EXPANDING GOVERNMENT'S SHARE OF THE ECONOMY IN THE US.
Busted. You're too obvious.
<quoted text>
Yes, Total Nonfarm Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) increased very much more during Clinton's 8 years than Bush's - no question.
However, there is no basis whatsoever for your crediting Clinton's tax increases with any causal relationship to job growth.
<quoted text>
Only relevant to other Euro-style socialistic economies that are dominated to a much greater degree by public sector employment and Unions than is the US's.
That may be your dream for the US - turning us into France or Greece - but hopefully such "progressive" nonsense will continue to be rejected by mainstream American voters at the polls long into the future.
If the tax cuts did not work as stimulus, what is there to show that undoing them would work in the other direction? IF it did not work there would be no harm.

You can not have it both ways. Either tax cuts are stimulating and undoing them would do harm or they are not stimulative and undoing them would do no harm.

Where is the argument that cutting spending will expand economic growth during a recession or downturn? And yet, that is exactly what you call for, isn't it?

Balanced approach:

1. Cut spending where it does not adversely impact the economy and shift resources to where you get the biggest benefit for the dollars spent.

2. Raise taxes where it has the least adverse economic on the economy. People at the top are hoarding and not spending, tax them more. Tax capital gains more. Get rid of unnecessary subsidies like for the oil industry. Just like we have the AMT, pass an AMT for corporations, say 5%.

As the economy improves hold the line on spending while raising taxes more.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#114970 May 9, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
If the tax cuts did not work as stimulus, what is there to show that undoing them would work in the other direction? IF it did not work there would be no harm.
You can not have it both ways. Either tax cuts are stimulating and undoing them would do harm or they are not stimulative and undoing them would do no harm.
You're asking a lot of useless questions.

Look - it's very simple:
The economy is performing as it's currently performing (i.e., weakest recovery from recession in history) under the present federal tax regime.

The only question that is of any interest today is what would the effect be on the economy (i.e., economic growth and employment) of raising taxes?

You want to increase taxes - so it's for you to provide a compelling argument why this would be a smart thing to do, when the conventional economic wisdom says it's exactly what you'd do if you wanted to hurt economic growth and employment.

Looking forward to seeing your clear and convincing argument.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the argument that cutting spending will expand economic growth during a recession or downturn? And yet, that is exactly what you call for, isn't it?
Pretty simple - conventional economic theory says that when the federal government borrows to fund all that spending (as is presently the case), it "squeezes out" other borrowers and drives up borrowing costs for all - leading to higher costs of capital, and lower economic output/growth in the private economy.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Balanced approach:
1. Cut spending where it does not adversely impact the economy and shift resources to where you get the biggest benefit for the dollars spent.
Sure - it's what they should be doing all the time as standard policy.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Raise taxes where it has the least adverse economic on the economy. People at the top are hoarding and not spending, tax them more. Tax capital gains more. Get rid of unnecessary subsidies like for the oil industry. Just like we have the AMT, pass an AMT for corporations, say 5%.
As the economy improves hold the line on spending while raising taxes more.
I'd only take issue with two points there -

1) "Tax the rich." Lefty class warrior claptrap. What do you think the "people at the top are hoarding" means in reality? Where do you imagine all that lovely wealth you so covet is actually being "hoarded?"

2) "Tax capital gains." Exactly the last thing you should do if - as at present - the economy is over-leveraged and you need to pay down debt. You need INCREASED savings and investment to de-leverage. Tax something and you get LESS of it - it's a fundamental law of nature. Dumb idea - if your true aim is to actually improve the economy, and not just "eat the eeevul rich."
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#114971 May 9, 2012
Here's the kind of unintended consequences you get by getting over-aggressive with your tax policies -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/u-s-...

It's a competitive world out there - and if the US
taxes capital over-aggressively to appease the leftist progressive "Eat the Rich" fanatics, that capital simply leaves and goes somewhere else.

You lose.

Simple as that.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114972 May 9, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
....Pretty simple - conventional economic theory says that when the federal government borrows to fund all that spending (as is presently the case), it "squeezes out" other borrowers and drives up borrowing costs for all - leading to higher costs of capital, and lower economic output/growth in the private economy.
<quoted text>
Sure - it's what they should be doing all the time as standard policy.
<quoted text>
I'd only take issue with two points there -
1) "Tax the rich." Lefty class warrior claptrap. What do you think the "people at the top are hoarding" means in reality? Where do you imagine all that lovely wealth you so covet is actually being "hoarded?"
2) "Tax capital gains." Exactly the last thing you should do if - as at present - the economy is over-leveraged and you need to pay down debt. You need INCREASED savings and investment to de-leverage. Tax something and you get LESS of it - it's a fundamental law of nature. Dumb idea - if your true aim is to actually improve the economy, and not just "eat the eeevul rich."
Conventional economic theory says......but the fact is, lending rates haven't been lower in your lifetime. The rate for 30 year mortgages is ~3.5%. Inflation is low. The reality of the situation is not what you would expect.

BTW: You already know that I stated make spending cuts that do not harm our economy.

As far as taxing the rich.....look at what I wrote later. As the economy improves you can tax more and those taxes could be geared to other income groups as the rich would already be paying more. It does not matter "where" they are hording it, it matters that they are not spending it. And before you come up with something lame, if a small business person is putting it back in his business that is spending it.

Capital Gains - Yeah, I knew you were one of those that punished workers and if you were fortunate enought to be born a Walton heir you get a tax break. Stop giving them tax breaks Teddy.

Before you give us a sob story, 80% of working Americans have no retirement plan beyond SS. 401K plans are taxed as income not as capital gains. IRA's are taxed as income, not capital gains. So who in reality gets the break from capital gains?

Tax all income as income regardless of source.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#114974 May 9, 2012
We should raise taxes on those making 250K...maybe three tiers up to 50-70% on the top with obvious deductions for investment in American corps hiring American workers.

Problem?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#114975 May 9, 2012
joe wrote:
We should raise taxes on those making 250K...maybe three tiers up to 50-70% on the top with obvious deductions for investment in American corps hiring American workers.
Problem?
Yeah. You won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - because that goose can run. Capital and wealthy individuals will simply leave the US and go elsewhere, where they and their talents and their capital will be welcomed with open arms.

They already are - in rapidly increasing numbers.

http://www.webpronews.com/u-s-citizenship-ren...

At 70%, you'll see the few thousand wealthy Americans tax refugees renouncing every year hit 5 figures. Not good for America. Americans needs to wake up to the fact that the US is no longer the only, or even the shiniest, Eldorado in today's world. We are in cut-throat competition now for capital and the most innovative and brilliant people, and it's an uphill battle. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg might be one in a million, but there are a thousand more just like them in China, and the surest way to get less of something is to tax it more.

Dumb idea, and a foolish price to pay, when this doesn't raise any really significant amount of new revenue, in comparison to what's needed to right the fiscal ship. There simply aren't enough '1 percenters' to even make a dent in the vastly over-bloated black hole/money sink inside the Beltway.

Go ahead and wage your progressive class war on the wealthy, but don't pretend it won't have negative consequences. You'll get exactly what you're wishing for - Amoerica reduced to a lower common demoninator.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#114976 May 10, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. You won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - because that goose can run. Capital and wealthy individuals will simply leave the US and go elsewhere, where they and their talents and their capital will be welcomed with open arms.
They already are - in rapidly increasing numbers.
http://www.webpronews.com/u-s-citizenship-ren...
At 70%, you'll see the few thousand wealthy Americans tax refugees renouncing every year hit 5 figures. Not good for America. Americans needs to wake up to the fact that the US is no longer the only, or even the shiniest, Eldorado in today's world. We are in cut-throat competition now for capital and the most innovative and brilliant people, and it's an uphill battle. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg might be one in a million, but there are a thousand more just like them in China, and the surest way to get less of something is to tax it more.
Dumb idea, and a foolish price to pay, when this doesn't raise any really significant amount of new revenue, in comparison to what's needed to right the fiscal ship. There simply aren't enough '1 percenters' to even make a dent in the vastly over-bloated black hole/money sink inside the Beltway.
Go ahead and wage your progressive class war on the wealthy, but don't pretend it won't have negative consequences. You'll get exactly what you're wishing for - Amoerica reduced to a lower common demoninator.
Let the geese run, and then bar them from ever returning to the US. We can even bar US businesses from doing business with any of them. Let them run.

At one time the top rate was 90% because that is what the nation needed. Did Ford run? Did the bush's and Kennedy's run?

I say let the lilly livered cowards run and then completely ostracize them from America.

Teddy's answer is to cut Food Stamps and housing from people who don't have enough food or housing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gov.-elect Tom Wolf, other leaders respond to s... 9 hr lady 2
Hot Girl Hot Topic 17 hr Jimmy Love 1
Muslim girls pics Thu Arif 2
York City church deemed unsafe for worship (Apr '10) Dec 16 irishbasturd 67
Police: Driver found asleep behind wheel on Rt.... (Dec '10) Dec 16 COYORK 49
Police win firefighters lose Dec 16 Disgusted 1
Two charged in heroin arrest Dec 13 lady 1
York Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in York

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:01 pm PST

CBS Sports 2:01PM
Ravens rookie didn't know rookies could make Pro Bowl
Bleacher Report 7:00 AM
Eagles vs. Giants: Live Philadelphia Score and Analysis
Bleacher Report 9:00 AM
Philadelphia Eagles vs. New York Giants: Live New York Score and Analysis
NBC Sports10:45 AM
Ravens' fourth-down try goes bust
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Browns, Ravens tied at three at halftime