Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

error: Forum not initialized properly! Please check the link and try again.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 14th 2012 new

The HHS mandate is a SPIRITUAL battle. It will only be resolved by prayer, fasting and people finally standing up for their Catholic faith, and I don't mean behind their computer screen. This is the year of faith. Jesus said "Will their be any faith left when I return?" Not if people just talk about it. Go USA

We are the army of the Lord!! The remnant for the final times (no matter how long that may be for). We need to stay focused on who the real enemy is. It's Satan, and he can't be beaten by complaining, or talking, or not knowing where our real strength lies. In Jesus Christ of Nazareth who can do all things. Dove

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: Sounds good to me. But I'm willing to bet in his heart of hearts Mitch McConnell cares...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Sounds good to me.

But I'm willing to bet in his heart of hearts Mitch McConnell cares one million times more about keeping taxes low for rich people than he does about the HHS Mandate.

.

BTW, today's income tax rates (which have not gone up since Obama took office) are substantially lower than they were in the 50s and 60s - when the US economy was the envy of the world

www.businessinsider.com

It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but this is strong proof that higher taxes won't kill us. Given the structural budget deficit, we must raise taxes.

So good deal as far as I'm concerned.

--hide--

Explain to me; How could Bushe's tax cuts be considered tax cuts for trhe rich? Under hsi pplan millions of lower paid workers were removed from them tax rolls, That is a 100% tax cut. Many of them receivedmore than a 100% income tax cut because they were able to receive credits to offset Social Security taxes paid.

The middle class received an average 33% cut. That is a substantial tax cut however one might want to define it.

The rich recieved an average cut of 10%.

Unfortunately, most people think in terms of dollars. As an aside, that is why most peopel, fail at investing; they look at dollar and not percentage return. But I digress

Now I realize that a rich man being given only a 1% cut cut would save more dollars than the poor or middle class person. But the average dollar cut the poor or middle class received means a lot more to them then the many more dollars the rich man had his taxes cut by.

I realize that still makes a very small impression on most people. So how come, since the rich got these "huge" cuts for the rich, how did they end up paying an even larger percentage of the total income taxes collected from individuals?

Another question: Do you know of any poor person who pays people to work for them? How many jobs do poor people create?

How many millionaires do poor and middle income people create? Do you have even an inkling of how many millionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffitt, Larry Elison, or Steve Jobs created? Do you have any idea how many jobs they created? How many pay checks they signed?

The US economy was the envy of the world in the 1980, 1990, and the first 8 years of 2000. In that 30 year period of low taxes more jobs were created in the US than in all of Europe and Asia combined.. And in the 1980s and the early 2000s more high paid jobs were created than low paying jobs.

In the 1950s and early 60's the US was still benefiting from the fact that Europe as well as large parts of Asia were still recovering from WWII.

Except for Germany and England, most of Europe has suffered double digit unemployment since WWII despite all the make work laws they have on their books. They also have high taxes to pay for all these wonderful social welfare programs and they are all, including England and Germany going broke because of them.

Yep, that is what we need more of soak the rich taxes, more unemployment and provide all those non-workers with even more welfare which means everyone's taxes have to go up. Perfect prescription for solving our problems.

Nov 15th 2012 new

Paul, Paul, Paul,

"In the 1950s and early 60's the US was still benefiting from the fact that Europe as well as large parts of Asia were still recovering from WWII."

Yes, I realize there is more to the story, which is why I said it was not an apples-to-apple comparison.


"The US economy was the envy of the world in the 1980, 1990, and the first 8 years of 2000."

That sounds like a Fox News talking point. And looking through the past with rose-colored glasses. We had recessions during those years as well as booms.


"In that 30 year period of low taxes more jobs were created in the US than in all of Europe and Asia combined."

I don't have to look that up, but it is obviously impossible, given the population of the US is only 300 million while the population of Asia is in the billions.

"And in the 1980s and the early 2000s more high paid jobs were created than low paying jobs."

Also sounds impossible. Even in the best of times more low-paying jobs should be created than high-paying jobs. Depends on our definition of high and low-paying.

The federal budget deficit is a trillion dollars a year. Obama didn't cause this; the recession caused it, and if we ever get out of this recession it will shrink. Economic growth is the best way out, but will it be enough?

Look at where federal money goes: www.cbo.gov

Click on the graphic and it will enlarge to a readable size.

Please tell me where you would cut. People often throw out ideas like aid to Pakistan or education for children of illegal immigrants, but that money is trivial compared to the federal budget, which is mostly Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

I don't want the US to become Europe or adopt tax rates that high. I do want to get us on a sustainable path. The Bush tax cuts were like running up the credit card and made us as a society appear richer in the the 2000s than we actually were. The popping of the housing bubble and massive financial industry bailouts showed how shallow the "good times" of 2005 really were.

We have a lot of economic problems. We need to make more stuff in this country. Too many people just want to live off their stock portfolios and real estate investments and get mad if those don't increase in value every year. Those people need to get off their butts and get jobs. We need to end the "retirement mentality" whereby people expect to live off investments and not work.

I want private industry to thrive and hire people. But you can't just arbitrarily say taxes are at the correct level right now. Or that tax cuts pay for themselves (it has been shown the Bush tax cuts did NOT pay for themselves.)


Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: Paul, Paul, Paul, "In the 1950s and early 60's the US was still benefiti...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Paul, Paul, Paul,

"In the 1950s and early 60's the US was still benefiting from the fact that Europe as well as large parts of Asia were still recovering from WWII."

Yes, I realize there is more to the story, which is why I said it was not an apples-to-apple comparison.


"The US economy was the envy of the world in the 1980, 1990, and the first 8 years of 2000."

That sounds like a Fox News talking point. And looking through the past with rose-colored glasses. We had recessions during those years as well as booms.


"In that 30 year period of low taxes more jobs were created in the US than in all of Europe and Asia combined."

I don't have to look that up, but it is obviously impossible, given the population of the US is only 300 million while the population of Asia is in the billions.

"And in the 1980s and the early 2000s more high paid jobs were created than low paying jobs."

Also sounds impossible. Even in the best of times more low-paying jobs should be created than high-paying jobs. Depends on our definition of high and low-paying.

The federal budget deficit is a trillion dollars a year. Obama didn't cause this; the recession caused it, and if we ever get out of this recession it will shrink. Economic growth is the best way out, but will it be enough?

Look at where federal money goes: www.cbo.gov

Click on the graphic and it will enlarge to a readable size.

Please tell me where you would cut. People often throw out ideas like aid to Pakistan or education for children of illegal immigrants, but that money is trivial compared to the federal budget, which is mostly Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

I don't want the US to become Europe or adopt tax rates that high. I do want to get us on a sustainable path. The Bush tax cuts were like running up the credit card and made us as a society appear richer in the the 2000s than we actually were. The popping of the housing bubble and massive financial industry bailouts showed how shallow the "good times" of 2005 really were.

We have a lot of economic problems. We need to make more stuff in this country. Too many people just want to live off their stock portfolios and real estate investments and get mad if those don't increase in value every year. Those people need to get off their butts and get jobs. We need to end the "retirement mentality" whereby people expect to live off investments and not work.

I want private industry to thrive and hire people. But you can't just arbitrarily say taxes are at the correct level right now. Or that tax cuts pay for themselves (it has been shown the Bush tax cuts did NOT pay for themselves.)


--hide--


I certainly hope you're not saying that people that worked all their lives and have now retired and are "living off of their stock portfolios and real estate investments" should "get off their butts and get jobs." There is no law in this country that everyone should work until they die. And, if they retire at age 50 or 55 or 65 and are able to do so because they saved the money and/or invested the money they needed to, then it is their right to retire and live off what they accumulated. And, I have found that some of these people start other endeavors such as doing volunteer work, starting a small business, writing a book, etc. There are those who do just retire and spend their lives playing golf ( not my choice but it is their right to do so and they don't owe anybody an apology for doing so.) I don't know anybody who just "wanted to live off their stock portfolio" even though I've known a couple people who due to the millions they made fairly early in life (in their 40's) could do so. One of them started another business. Another went back to college to get a degree. Another did not retire until age 66. The people I have seen who seem to want to live off the rest of us are all of the govt. employees who retire after 25 years with large pensions and medical benefits that are not sustainable by their associations or unions (and I include the teachers' unions in this category). Some of them then take a job which creates another pension for them and then retire with double pensions (and these area all government people I'm talking about). Their benefits are coming right out of our taxes because their pensions are going under and so are now borrowing money from other areas of govt. monies to keep them going. This must end!

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: Sounds good to me. But I'm willing to bet in his heart of hearts Mitch McConnell cares...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Sounds good to me.

But I'm willing to bet in his heart of hearts Mitch McConnell cares one million times more about keeping taxes low for rich people than he does about the HHS Mandate.

.

BTW, today's income tax rates (which have not gone up since Obama took office) are substantially lower than they were in the 50s and 60s - when the US economy was the envy of the world

www.businessinsider.com

It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but this is strong proof that higher taxes won't kill us. Given the structural budget deficit, we must raise taxes.

So good deal as far as I'm concerned.

--hide--


The first point the article makes is that tax cuts "increase economic inequality." That is a socialist point from the
get go. The basis of our country is the "ability to achieve," and if you take away the economic gain from working hard,
that changes the dynamics of achievement.

Being charitable is one thing, but flattening the earning ability of hard workers will have bad outcomes.

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Ron-26907 said: A short while ago, I made this post on Catholic Advocates Website. I encourage you to do the ...
(Quote) Ron-26907 said:

A short while ago, I made this post on Catholic Advocates Website.

I encourage you to do the same. Also, write your congressman and senators.

Thank You!

To whom it may concern:

AS you know the HHS Mandate is forcing Catholic Institutions to provide abortion coverage as well as sexual contraceptive medications in their health insurance plans.

I am suggesting that you contact members of congress and the senate to give Mr. Obama the tax hike on the 2% in exchange for a wavier of the HHS Mandate. Religious Freedom is far more important. After all, Jesus said "Give to Caersars what is Caesar's and to God what is Gods!".

Mr. Obama would have to give something up and risk getting criticized by his base.

Mr. Obama needs to learn that he can not receive and eat his cake at the same time.

What do you think?

I wrote Mitch McConnell an email on this subject

--hide--


Sen. McConnell made a comment in an interview last week with The Wall Street Journal to the effect that he felt the ACA laws were going to collapse under the weight of their own problems. He didn't elaborate further. Have you read more about this in the Kentucky press?

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Explain to me; How could Bushe's tax cuts be considered tax cuts for trhe rich? Under...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Explain to me; How could Bushe's tax cuts be considered tax cuts for trhe rich? Under hsi pplan millions of lower paid workers were removed from them tax rolls, That is a 100% tax cut. Many of them receivedmore than a 100% income tax cut because they were able to receive credits to offset Social Security taxes paid.

The middle class received an average 33% cut. That is a substantial tax cut however one might want to define it.

The rich recieved an average cut of 10%.

Unfortunately, most people think in terms of dollars. As an aside, that is why most peopel, fail at investing; they look at dollar and not percentage return. But I digress

Now I realize that a rich man being given only a 1% cut cut would save more dollars than the poor or middle class person. But the average dollar cut the poor or middle class received means a lot more to them then the many more dollars the rich man had his taxes cut by.

I realize that still makes a very small impression on most people. So how come, since the rich got these "huge" cuts for the rich, how did they end up paying an even larger percentage of the total income taxes collected from individuals?

Another question: Do you know of any poor person who pays people to work for them? How many jobs do poor people create?

How many millionaires do poor and middle income people create? Do you have even an inkling of how many millionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffitt, Larry Elison, or Steve Jobs created? Do you have any idea how many jobs they created? How many pay checks they signed?

The US economy was the envy of the world in the 1980, 1990, and the first 8 years of 2000. In that 30 year period of low taxes more jobs were created in the US than in all of Europe and Asia combined.. And in the 1980s and the early 2000s more high paid jobs were created than low paying jobs.

In the 1950s and early 60's the US was still benefiting from the fact that Europe as well as large parts of Asia were still recovering from WWII.

Except for Germany and England, most of Europe has suffered double digit unemployment since WWII despite all the make work laws they have on their books. They also have high taxes to pay for all these wonderful social welfare programs and they are all, including England and Germany going broke because of them.

Yep, that is what we need more of soak the rich taxes, more unemployment and provide all those non-workers with even more welfare which means everyone's taxes have to go up. Perfect prescription for solving our problems.

--hide--


All good points, Paul.

The 1950s-to-2000s comparison gets overused in the liberal thinktank press and it is a false comparison.

1950s tax brackets and 2000's tax brackets cannot be compared with much accuracy. Tax policies change year to year. The 1950s had higher economic productivity, almost worldwide monopoly conditions for some U.S. manufacturing industries and many more tax deductions than now. Also, the regulatory climate of the 1950s cannot compare to now, and certainly not under the regulation-heavy Obama administration.

Hey ... if we restore the 1950s tax rates, can we also get 1950s levels of regulation and 1950s deductions? I'll be spending no time on CM if that's the case. ;)

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said All good points, Paul.The 1950s-to-2000s comparison gets overused in the liberal thinkt...
(Quote) John-727073 said


All good points, Paul.

The 1950s-to-2000s comparison gets overused in the liberal thinktank press and it is a false comparison.

1950s tax brackets and 2000's tax brackets cannot be compared with much accuracy. Tax policies change year to year. The 1950s had higher economic productivity, almost worldwide monopoly conditions for some U.S. manufacturing industries and many more tax deductions than now. Also, the regulatory climate of the 1950s cannot compare to now, and certainly not under the regulation-heavy Obama administration.

Hey ... if we restore the 1950s tax rates, can we also get 1950s levels of regulation and 1950s deductions? I'll be spending no time on CM if that's the case. ;)

--hide--

Another thing the tax the rich crowd forget,especially when they hearken back to the good old 1950s is that although the top tax rate was 90%, the rich paid an average of only 33% of their income in income taxes.

The big Bush's tax cut for the rich still finds the average taxes paid by the rich in that same area. Yet every time in my lifetime that taxes have been cut (Kennedy's in the 60s, Reagan's and Bush's) the rich ended up paying a higher percentage of the taxes collected from individuals and total taxes collected increased.

Liberals can't explain the paradox because it does not fit their distorted world view. The simple fact is that in every case of those tax cuts economic activity increased so that the overall tax take was increased even though everyone was paying at a lower rate.

But if you beleive the rich don't pay their fair share what difference does reality make.

As to the canard about what would you cut what about getting Federal Government out of Education. The cost inflation of higher education has increased faster then general inflation during my entire lifetime. Most of the time at double digit rates. Since Uncle stuck his nose in, the rate of inflation has been higher accompanied by grade inflation and lower standards.

Health care as a percentage of GDP has always been a significant part. Since Medicare, the two biggest factors in the cost inflation has been the cost of advances; i.e. expensive new machines and techniques; the unnecessary cost of bringing new medicines to market. In the latter case, the UIS carrying most of the development costs for the entire world because all the socialized medicine countries artificially control prices on the low side. But the single biggest factor is Medicare and its off shoots itself. Because now there is no need for any Doctor or hospital to even consider providing free or low cost care to the less affluent. Uncle will pay. Despite all efforts by Uncle to artificially reduce what it pays, the prise rises continue apace.

The list goes on, but all the handouts are now "entilements" and we just can't cut entitlements.

Notice, nowhere have I mentioned the biggest areas of cuts possible. The bloated waste due to bureaucracy. Remember the expensive hammers in defense spending. Or one I personally had to deal with. I used to work for the big kite factory in Seattle. I was responsible for buying the seats that the Minuteman crews used in the silos. Without going into the gory details, each of those seats had a built-in relief system consisting of a plastic gallon bottle, plastic tubing and plastic funnel. At the time all easily and inexpensively obtainable in any retail hardware or dime store (for the younger set a dime store was a more upscale version of today's dollar store) at a total retail cost of less than $5. My Company had to pay over $125 for the 3 items. And the Air Force had to pay my company that plus our overhead and profit factor. End cost to Uncle well north of $200 for 3 items easily bought for less than $5.

Get rid of the unnecessary numbers of bureaucrats and you could keep all the unnecessary programs and save multi billions of dollars.,

Nov 15th 2012 new

The thing that did not the economy in was the Sub Prime Mortgages. The program was pushed by the Democrats under the belief that everyone should own a home. Historically home ownership has been arouind 55-60 percent

Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd sat on the committes that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bush tried to warn them about the problems with these mortgages, but he could get no cooperation from them. Bush should more aggressive on this issue. He should have taken it to the American People.

When Obama was a community organizer, his job was to put presser on banks to offer these loans. The Banks were stupid for offering these types of loans.

Nov 15th 2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said: Sen. McConnell made a comment in an interview last week with The Wall Street Journal to th...
(Quote) John-727073 said:



Sen. McConnell made a comment in an interview last week with The Wall Street Journal to the effect that he felt the ACA laws were going to collapse under the weight of their own problems. He didn't elaborate further. Have you read more about this in the Kentucky press?

--hide--

John

This is new to me. I will check into it.

Posts 21 - 30 of 34