Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen

Judged:

1

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Congress failed to come up with a budget months ago. They were punished by Moody's by downgrading our credit rating.
Try again, zippy, and this time, try to stick to the facts.
PS: When congress fails to come up with a budget in Dec/Jan, the tea party will feel the wrath of the American people because it will be on the front page of every paper or website that their pledge to a nobody ruined our already shaky economy.
enjoy your bliss

JDC wrote:

<quoted text>
umm not true. MAny poor people get far more from the government than they pay in. As Milton Friedman called it a negative income tax.

JDC wrote:

The poor pay no taxes:
Single Mom. She makes $ 9.25 per hour, totaling $18,500 resulting in $1045.25 in FICA (4.2%) tax and medicare (1.45%) combined. Why a single mom making 18K and having three kids is a topic for another thread.
Her taxable income is zero as she has a standard deduction of $8,500 and personal exemptions of $14,800, thus she has no income taxes.
Now for the refundable tax credits (can you say welfare)
Child tax credits 2,325
EITC 5,751
Total Refundable credits are $8,076.
This "taxpayer" would get a refund of $8,076.00, which is $7,030.75 more than they paid in FICA and medicare tax. And guess what, they are still eligible for benefits from these programs even though her cost was zero.
Many families in this country are exactly like the example above in that they in effect pay a negative income tax.
This $7,030 is an extra $135 a week to cover sales, property and other taxes you can come up with.
Ok regarding your other tax's lets address them:
First and foremost, this "taxpayer" has been reimbursed for her fica and medicare taxs paid and has an extra $7,000.
Now for gas tax, let' say she drives 15000 miles averages 25 miles meaning she buys 600 gallons per year. Gas tax averages 48 cents per gallon thus she paid a whopping total of $288 in total gas taxes. Subtract that form the $7,000 the refund she received (When she never paid a dime) she now has $6,712 to cover other taxes.
Let's now address sales tax she pays. Let's say she lives in a state that has sales tax and let's say it is above the nation average and it is at 9%. She takes home about $344 per week, let say she spends $325 for taxable items, taxed at 9% that results in $29.25 in sales tax per week, a high estimate.$29.25 per week in sales tax is $1,521.00. She now has an extra $5,191 extra from the government after considering payroll taxes, gas tax, and sales taxes.
So any taxes you can some up with, she still gets more from the government.
Go ahead, run the numbers tell me where I am wrong. Tell me what other taxes they could possibly pay that actually makes them a “taxpayer”?
In addition, this “taxpayer” is still eligible for benefits from social security, medicare, food stamps, housing assistance, child care assistance, tax free child support, utility programs to name a few.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
that's not what you said.
you said that the get refunds even though they've paid zero into the system.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
you're not wrong.
but you said that that "paid zero into the system", and that's not true at all.
your example DID pay into the system.
.
just as everyone else does.

Jeff T in MPLS wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks! Nothing gets a good laugh like LIBERAL VICTIM mentality!
"...They were punished by Moody's by downgrading our credit rating."
Your parents must have hit you a lot...well, who would blame them.
Moody's did not "punish" the US, they responded to the crappy, liberal agenda they saw, that there was no vision or leadership sheparding us in a POSITIVE direction (which is NOT the direction Obama has us going in, no matter how much he "blames Bush", Obama has been in charge for 3.5 years now) and did what they should have done, RATED our economic viability lower.
Typical liberal, instead of seeing that as "we are moving in a wrong direction and we need to reverse that", you think you are being "punished", take it personal, up your meds and see all three of your counselors.
Here, let us see how your brain absorbs this:
Remember a few months ago, when 49 states settled with the DOJ forcing lenders to contribute $25 BILLION into a fund to help "the homeowner/common man"?
You thought Obama was doing that for YOU, didn't you!
Well, here is yesterday's news:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_21200246/govt-ba...
So, let me ask you a question:
Fresh influx of $25 BILLION dollars for the Feds to "dole out" upon principle reduction approval, but suddenly, those programs are halted!
What is that money doing right now and who is in control of it?
Not to mention, all these homeowners who are now in flux because they are delinquent on their mortgage, have been told they qualify for this program and now, what?
Or is this Bush's fault as well?

JDC wrote:

<quoted text>
And they do as they example I have shown. That is why it is a negative income tax. But Milton Friedman was a very intelligent man, so if you can't grasp the concept, I understand.

JDC wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree with my example but feel they pay into the system.
If the example I provided above, shows they paid about $1,000 in payroll taxes and got back about $8,000 that was refunded in excess of what they paid because of refundable tax credits, what is their "net cost to the government"? It is a negative figure and as Milton said that is a negative income tax.
No not everyone gets back more than they paid in, I know I sure didn't.

Judged:

1

1

1

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>BUsh lost $200,000,000 training Iraqi soldiers and that's just the beginning. There are actually BILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was well before President Obama even ran for President that the money simply disappeared.
Bush's wars and the tax cuts destroyed our economy never mind Bush's quest for everyone to own a home. How'd that turn out?

Marine Corp Pat wrote:

HELLO?
I have been on here for the past 3 years pointing that out. Why do you think I have been calling these tea-bagging right-wingers “unpatriotic”; it is because Rush Limbaugh said a few weeks after President Obama’s inauguration “[He] hopes he fails”. And every right-wing bastard cheered that unpatriotic sentiment.
If I had my way every single right-wing tea-bagging nut would be charged with treason and dealt with immediately and appropriately.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>BUsh lost $200,000,000 training Iraqi soldiers and that's just the beginning. There are actually BILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was well before President Obama even ran for President that the money simply disappeared.
Bush's wars and the tax cuts destroyed our economy never mind Bush's quest for everyone to own a home. How'd that turn out?

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
but that's the thing, EVERYONE pays into the system.
you implied that your example didn't pay into the system at all, as if her wages weren't subjected to taxes.
the fact remains that your example is living below the poverty level, and technically doesn't make enough money to support herself and her children.
.
that being said, what do you think the woman in your example should do about that?

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
the fact remains that your example is living below the poverty level, and technically doesn't make enough money to support herself and her children.
.
that being said, what do you think the woman in your example should do about that?

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
well....., corporations get back more than they paid in.
and anyone that claims "0" on their w2, but them claims dependents in April get refunds too.
.

anneutral wrote:

<quoted text>
could you survive on $11.5k a year?

anneutral wrote:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12 poverty.shtml/
(and your example, single mom with 3 kids, is living far below the poverty line)

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Bush's wars and the tax cuts destroyed our economy never mind Bush's quest for everyone to own a home. How'd that turn out?

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff T in MPLS wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you say "Bush"?
Who is the President today? How about the last 3.75 years?
Try to stick to CURRENT events.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Bush is running in this upcoming election. Not that details like that would hinder you. You will be 90 years old, in that nursing home getting your butt wiped, telling the orderly about Bush.
You know, resentment and unforgiveness are indicative of mental illness.
I am just as if not more disappointed in the LIBERAL Bush presidency than you are. However, that is yesterdays news.
Today, we have a much worse threat. Not an accidently liberal Bush, but a maliciously liberal Obama.
We have much bigger fish to fry than to worry about your tired, worn-out "Bush" whining.

Judged:

1

1

1

See the Light wrote:

<quoted text>Kids are having heart attacks and obesity because of the junk they EAT. Ever think about all the chemicals put in food, and the preservatives and high fructose corn syrup. If Obama was really serious about making us eat better, he'd outlaw those. That's reason why there's cancer. Quit blaming Republicans, its you idiots. If you don't think aspertame in diet sodas is poisonous, look it up. You guys blame everyone, but its you're own fault cause you're ignorant.