BuffettNews.com

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:within reason... you cut too far, and your revenue drops off.

The facts prove otherwise.

no, common sense says you cut too far and your revenue drops off

Common sense says when you cut taxes and revenue goes up, you don't have to cut taxes anymore so you don't cut "too far".

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:Words of wisdom from madam speaker...


:
Take special note of the last paragraph.

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as
"just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".
First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in
Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time
highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort
and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only
the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene
record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income
created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the
stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their
hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that
create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to
address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock
market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:Words of wisdom from madam speaker...


:
Take special note of the last paragraph.

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as
"just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".
First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in
Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time
highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort
and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only
the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene
record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income
created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the
stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their
hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that
create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to
address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock
market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have
investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market
she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all
these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming
that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor
sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous".
How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and minorities in
our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election
when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax
rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current
lower Federal Income Tax tax payers off the roles and increase government
income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income
in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.


When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied ;
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed
minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to
guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as
Americans



Research has been unable to verify the validity of these words, if anyone can refute these quotes I would certainly edit this post.

...It's a parody based on extremes of Democratic stereotypes....that was written as a bit of pre-election satire and falsely attributed to a pair of New York Times reporters.

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:within reason... you cut too far, and your revenue drops off.

The facts prove otherwise.

no, common sense says you cut too far and your revenue drops off

Common sense says when you cut taxes and revenue goes up, you don't have to cut taxes anymore so you don't cut "too far".

ideally... but you can only cut them so far before that effect ends, and given that any effort to raise them back to previous levels kicks off a thread like this, mirrored in hundreds of other places, and politicians are not exactly noted for taking the hard road in the face of the long-term... once you go past the tipping point, we are never going to see an effort to restore equilibrium for fear of howling and sound-bytes used out of context against a candidate.

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:within reason... you cut too far, and your revenue drops off.

The facts prove otherwise.

no, common sense says you cut too far and your revenue drops off

Common sense says when you cut taxes and revenue goes up, you don't have to cut taxes anymore so you don't cut "too far".

ideally... but you can only cut them so far before that effect ends, and given that any effort to raise them back to previous levels kicks off a thread like this, mirrored in hundreds of other places, and politicians are not exactly noted for taking the hard road in the face of the long-term... once you go past the tipping point, we are never going to see an effort to restore equilibrium for fear of howling and sound-bytes used out of context against a candidate.

Bush has been in office 6 years, the effect hasn't worn off yet. But I'm pretty sure it will if the Democrats have their way and raise taxes.

chippewa wrote:

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:Words of wisdom from madam speaker...


:
Take special note of the last paragraph.

Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as
"just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".
First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new
record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are
getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in
Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time
highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort
and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only
the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare
recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene
record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income
created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those
dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the
stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their
hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that
create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to
address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock
market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have
investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market
she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all
these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming
that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor
sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous".
How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and minorities in
our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election
when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax
rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current
lower Federal Income Tax tax payers off the roles and increase government
income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income
in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.


When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied ;
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and
minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed
minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to
guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as
Americans



Research has been unable to verify the validity of these words, if anyone can refute these quotes I would certainly edit this post.

Snopes.com lists the status of that urban legand as "false".
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

...It's a parody based on extremes of Democratic stereotypes....that was written as a bit of pre-election satire and falsely attributed to a pair of New York Times reporters.

Bubbaphan wrote: !((*@(+!~!!)(@*(!(&!!!!!)_)*!!!!!!*!_*_*&$*@*$&@*&!!!
I might as well QUIT working. There is no incentive to get ahead financially.
The more you make (which I barely scrape by on) the more I pay.
Both parties are to blame.

"Expatriated" is starting to have a nice ring to it.

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote: The facts prove otherwise.

no, common sense says you cut too far and your revenue drops off

Common sense says when you cut taxes and revenue goes up, you don't have to cut taxes anymore so you don't cut "too far".

ideally... but you can only cut them so far before that effect ends, and given that any effort to raise them back to previous levels kicks off a thread like this, mirrored in hundreds of other places, and politicians are not exactly noted for taking the hard road in the face of the long-term... once you go past the tipping point, we are never going to see an effort to restore equilibrium for fear of howling and sound-bytes used out of context against a candidate.

Bush has been in office 6 years, the effect hasn't worn off yet. But I'm pretty sure it will if the Democrats have their way and raise taxes.

so you would have us continue to deficit spend at the rate we are and pass the burden along?

LIPH wrote:...We have a deficit because politicians, on both sides of the aisle, never met a dollar they couldn't spend. Three or four times.

Two state lawmakers backing a controversial plan to buy iPods for every schoolchild in Michigan were among a group of politicians who made a trip to California that was paid for at least in part by Apple, the maker of iPods.

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote: no, common sense says you cut too far and your revenue drops off

Common sense says when you cut taxes and revenue goes up, you don't have to cut taxes anymore so you don't cut "too far".

ideally... but you can only cut them so far before that effect ends, and given that any effort to raise them back to previous levels kicks off a thread like this, mirrored in hundreds of other places, and politicians are not exactly noted for taking the hard road in the face of the long-term... once you go past the tipping point, we are never going to see an effort to restore equilibrium for fear of howling and sound-bytes used out of context against a candidate.

Bush has been in office 6 years, the effect hasn't worn off yet. But I'm pretty sure it will if the Democrats have their way and raise taxes.

so you would have us continue to deficit spend at the rate we are and pass the burden along?

Cutting taxes and deficit spending are two different issues. If Congress could get their act together they would bring the deficit under control without raising taxes.

captenuta wrote:The deficit is under control any shrinking because of the tax cuts. I can't believe some of you are arguing for higher taxes!

LIPH wrote:Cutting taxes and deficit spending are two different issues. If Congress could get their act together they would bring the deficit under control without raising taxes.

Wino you know wrote:

captenuta wrote:The deficit is under control any shrinking because of the tax cuts. I can't believe some of you are arguing for higher taxes!

I can.
These people b|tch if they don't get a pay raise, or if the price of gasoline (or anything else) goes up, but try to give them more of their OWN money (meaning-NOT the governments) back and they want no part of it.
IDIOTS!
G.D.M.F. IDIOTS!

LIPH wrote:For what it's worth, there's a small article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about the budget deficit. The Treasury Department reports that for the first 6 months of the 2007 fiscal year the deficit is down 15% from from the first 6 months of fiscal 2006. The deficit for the entire 2006 fiscal year was down 22% from fiscal 2005. Fiscal 2006 was the second consecutive year the deficit declined, although the article doesn't say by how much it declined in fiscal 2005.

RinglingRingling wrote:b) I pay about 40% of my income in the form of federal, state, and local income taxes, state and federal gas taxes, license fees, and the like. If I have to pay 45%, with the extra 5% going for deficit retirement, fine. The long-term benefits of that outweigh the short-term pain.

LIPH wrote:For what it's worth, there's a small article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about the budget deficit. The Treasury Department reports that for the first 6 months of the 2007 fiscal year the deficit is down 15% from from the first 6 months of fiscal 2006. The deficit for the entire 2006 fiscal year was down 22% from fiscal 2005. Fiscal 2006 was the second consecutive year the deficit declined, although the article doesn't say by how much it declined in fiscal 2005.

RinglingRingling wrote:

LIPH wrote:Cutting taxes and deficit spending are two different issues. If Congress could get their act together they would bring the deficit under control without raising taxes.

Wino you know wrote:

captenuta wrote:The deficit is under control any shrinking because of the tax cuts. I can't believe some of you are arguing for higher taxes!

I can.
These people b|tch if they don't get a pay raise, or if the price of gasoline (or anything else) goes up, but try to give them more of their OWN money (meaning-NOT the governments) back and they want no part of it.
IDIOTS!
G.D.M.F. IDIOTS!

a) I understand that taxes and deficit spending are two components to the same issue. However, neither side of the aisle is going to cut their spending, and the long-term effect is that either you do that, you raise taxes/twiddle with the tax formulas to better create the "sweet spot" where revenue matches outflow AND doesn't lay the burden (as a percentage of income) on one particular group or class, or you just give up.

b) I pay about 40% of my income in the form of federal, state, and local income taxes, state and federal gas taxes, license fees, and the like. If I have to pay 45%, with the extra 5% going for deficit retirement, fine. The long-term benefits of that outweigh the short-term pain.