I have to hand it to the clowns in Washington and the greedy snakes on Wall Street — it seems all you hear about on every media outlet is the pending fiscal cliff. To hear them talk, it’s the end of the world. But just like the Mayan version a few weeks ago, it’s more BS that these few want you to believe. If no “deal” is made before the new year, tax rate and revenues will go up, and spending will go down.
Think about it – isn’t that exactly what Americans want, and what they just voted for in November? The tax rates will return to the Clinton era rates, when 23 million jobs were created, the economy grew substantially, and we had a surplus — not a deficit. What’s wrong with that? Add to that military spending cuts with two wars over, and you have a recipe for economic growth. So what’s the issue?
Wall Street, the super rich, and big business do not want to give up any of their greedy gain made during the Bush years, which continued under Obama’s first term. For these greedy, there is never enough. They always want more.
So what will really happen when no agreement is made and tax rates and revenues go up? Well, at first the stock market will drop. Maybe even substantially. And there will be a lot of clatter about companies laying off more people to maintain their “bottom line." But then the wiser — and likely the greedier — in business (and eventually on Wall Street), will understand that a new normal is occurring.
This new normal will mean they will have to pay a fairer share of the costs of our society and government. This new normal where CEO pays fall from 475 times their employees pay, back nearer to 40 times as it was pre-1980’s. A new normal where business operating income percentage is reduced, but operating income dollars still grows, because the economic market is growing. A new normal where more people are employed, making liveable wages that they spend on housing, food, transportation and consumer goods.
This will drive the economic growth that is needed, and create the tax revenues needed to reduce then eliminate the deficit.
The rich will still get richer, just not at the absurd rate they are today, and not on the backs of the rest of us taxpayers. And Wall Street will recover, once they understand that getting a smaller return is much better than getting no return at all.
So just like the Mayan end-of-the-world I say don’t worry about this fiscal cliff. It will be more like a ski jump than anything else.
It's people like you both and that POS president you support who allow Chica2ool and her anchor babies to get welfare, section 8 housing and other freebees that I shouldn't be paying for and should be for legit AMERICANS. DemocRATS are the problem with the USA.
"Earnings and employment trends in the 1990s" - written in March, 2000 ...The stagnation in real earnings for much of the 1990s stands in marked contrast to the considerable growth in employment during that decade. As of December 1999, the end of the period examined in this article, the current economic expansion had lasted almost 9 years. During that period, total employment, as measured by the Current Population Survey (CPS), grew by more than 16½ million. Previous research, using data from the CPS, showed that employment growth during the first half of the 1990s was concentrated in both relatively higher paying and relatively lower paying job categories, with a decline in the number of jobs paying midlevel wages... http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/03/art2exc.htm
what you have to get over is your denial that the Bush admin Lied about Iraq didnt put 2 unfunded wars on the books or Medicare part D or the interest somehow shedding 700 k jobs a month was either Clintons fault or Black Jesus I gotta tell you loved the you tube vides of Bush and Brownie and Bush position on housing Did like the facts I posted as to whom the 47 percenters really are? 22 million jobs created under the Clinton Admin and that the reality of it
reality is waiting
The government operates on the money that we send them. A large percentage of high earners send them a larger percentage of their money than lower earners and a significant percentage file no income taxes at all. All the talk about 'fair share' never addresses those who pay no share. And when the government does not take in enough on taxes, they have to look to loans or print up more paper dollars to support all of their programs. Now a sensible person faced with a budget problem would look at his balance sheet and ask: Is everybody who owes me money paying me? Do I want to take on the interest rate in a loan? How can I fulfill my obligations (in the case of the government, the Constitutional obligations) and what really are my needs versus my wants? This is not about President Bush anymore, not about Bristol Palin, Wall Street or any of the other diversions thrown into the mix. It is about how our hard earned money is being spent and if our public servants could do a better job.
There is lots more fundamentally wrong with your position - foremost in the balance is that - typical of those who make your case - you completely neglect the essential matter of how would we deal with half of our population being denied any government assistance - including SSI, medicade and medicare, veterins bennies, disability, unemployment. And how would the costs to society of stopping those contributions compare to the current dollar savings? But this is nuanced, reality-based thinking....not in your ilk's baliwick. I say all of this knowing that it will not change your thinking one bit - other than to steel you up to defend it even more ferociusly and incorrectly.
try reading this http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/the-47-who-they-are-where-they-live-how-they-vote-and-why-they-matter/262506/ when your done with that try this google corps that dont pay taxes I see my posts have be erased by the folks on the right who dont want to see or read the Truth
any idea how Eleanor would try and spin this? "There are some not-so-poor outliers, like the 7,000 millionaires who paid no federal income taxes in 2011. But for the most part, when you hear "The 47%" you should think "old retired folks and poor working families."
BTW - Samstie is around but not back - you must have heard about his Sandy experience (breifly - tides came up while he was in the portapottie at the OC annex building - portabottie was knocked over and it, with Samstie trapped in it, were carried down Asbury until it wedged into the back alley at Readys where he was pried out and hosed down by the kitchen staff on Tuesday morning - long story and best told by him)....I think his buddy Al Terego may be writing again though.
And I have seen disabled, homeless people begging on the streets - in midtown NYC and downtown San Fran - two of the most liberal areas of the country.
As I wrote the other day, if a $0.05 cent (one nickel) national sale tax on all sales $10.00 and over would begin funneling money into the treasury very quickly. So if you bought a pair of sneakers or a house, only 5 cents would be added to the final bill. It’s time for everyone to start paying into the system. Here’s a quick example; Walmart makes $36M p/hr or $864M per day. They have 100M customers per week or 14,285,714 per day. That averages out to $60.00 per customer. Now let’s say only 13M customers spend $10.00 or more, that’s $650,000 p/day or over $237M p/year. http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/ This is only one company in the entire country,just think of all the other retail chains,nail salons,lumber yards,mechanics,grocery stores,resturants,WaWa’s,Lowes and so on out there. Every transaction on Wall St can be included also. Any sale of any goods or services. One person would have to make 20 $10.00 purchases to contribute $1.00 in a week. The one nickel is just a bench mark to start with, if a dime, quarter or something in between works better then so be it, but this isn’t just a tax the rich situation. The majority of the country seems to want to be socialistic,so be it,everyone pays.
For all those who want socialized medicine,social programs, it's time to pony up and pay into a system that is able to garner money from every person not just a select group.
As for my point about the rudeness of the left - my reference was to make a simple point, not to expound on the extend of my travels, because that was not the issue and I doubt my lengthy itinerary would be interesting here. You, on the other hand, who do not know me have said that I "dont know anything" that I am "judgmental" and "mean spirited" and "phony" and that I "speak for women of another time warp". The fact that you could not respond without making a personal attack against me undercuts any merit that your arguments may have had. In fact, the remarks about my "shacking up" with someone during the hurricane can be said to be libelous - I really dont care, you have answered the way the left usually answered. However the person who calls himself "Samstie" may take issue with having his name and reputation written about in that way. Why is it so hard for you to just address the issue without getting personal?
http://oceancity.patch.com/blog_posts/sam-samstie-city-council-candidate-profile