Unions And Red Ink

 :: Main :: Politics

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:26 am

Unions And Red Ink

By Neal Boortz
March 2, 2010


We covered this on the show yesterday, but it's certainly wealth repeating here in the Nuze. Forward this to your friends, talk it up at lunch or dinner today. There's a valuable lesson to be learned here.

No doubt you know that several states out there are having financial problems. There are underfunded pensions, declining tax revenues and increased costs associated with the recession; and these problems only scratch the surface.

Forbes.com has developed some information that you might find interesting. First of all, here's a list of the five states that are in the worst financial shape:

* Illinois
* New York,
* Connecticut
* California
* New Jersey

... and the list of the five states in the best condition financially:

* Utah
* Nebraska
* Texas
* New Hampshire
* Virginia

Now ... let's look at the politics. The five states in the worst financial condition are solidly Democrat. They are the bluest of the blue. Of the three states in the best financial condition, three are solidly Republican; Utah, Nebraska and Texas. The other two lean Democrat, but only slightly.

The question, then, is why do heavily Democrat states seem to be in the poorest financial condition? According to Forbes, the problems in these Democrat-controlled states revolve around two facts ... stronger unions and more moochers. By more moochers I mean what Forbes refers to as "a stronger appetite for public programs." Stronger appetite for public programs? That means you have more people who are interested in using the government as an instrument of plunder (the moochers) than you have people who are interested in such arcane concepts as self-reliance and hard work.

Example? This from yesterday's Washington times: For the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government last year than they paid in taxes. Now just how long can we sustain this?

Sooner or later we're going to have to recognize that the proliferation of government sector unions and the growth of the moocher class are combining to bring this country to economic ruin. With unions you get less work for more money. With the moocher class you get no work - nothing productive - for vast sums of money. Productive American taxpayers pay the price.

Again (yup, I said this yesterday also), FDR was steadfastly opposed to government-sector unions. He had that right, but where is the politician today that has the nerve to bust these unions; to cut them off at the knees. Look at Greece, where the economy is in ruins. Perhaps it's important to know that over 50 percent of people with jobs in Greece work for the government, and most of them are represented by unions. Right now the unions are marching through the streets offering up threats and rhetoric as solutions to Greece's problems. Could that scene be repeated here?
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:59 pm

What's the proposition then? Let the unemployed hang out to dry and not provide any financial aid to those in need?

Funny thing Boortz forgot to mention is that the states that are in the worst condition are the ones that are most heavily industrialized. When you have lots of industry, you'll get hit the hardest during a recession. Such things as layoffs cannot be prevented, no matter what Party is in power.

The reason why Greece is bankrupt has nothing to do with Unions. It has to do with irresponsible gov't spending, nothing more.

Once again, an extreme bias is showing in Boortz's articles. Not only does he leave information out, he flat out lies and deceives the reader.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:22 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:What's the proposition then? Let the unemployed hang out to dry and not provide any financial aid to those in need?

There's such a thing as too much aid. Like welfare, too much aid can and does induce pople to lean on gov't.

BubbleBliss wrote:Funny thing Boortz forgot to mention is that the states that are in the worst condition are the ones that are most heavily industrialized. When you have lots of industry, you'll get hit the hardest during a recession. Such things as layoffs cannot be prevented, no matter what Party is in power.

Not really accurate. The top 5 states in December were
Unions And Red Ink Chart_state_unemployment_012210.03

California has the highest state budget deficit at over $13 billion. Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and West Virginia have the lowest deficits... none at all. Cali is a heavy public union state and the state legislature is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

Michigan has the highest unemployment rates at 10.6 percent, while Wyoming has the lowest at 3.4 percent (nobody lives there). Michigan, again, is a heavy union state which is also run by Dems.

BubbleBliss wrote:The reason why Greece is bankrupt has nothing to do with Unions. It has to do with irresponsible gov't spending, nothing more.

That's right. But when 50% of it's citizens are employed by that gov't, how does one not go into debt? You gotta pay those salaries. You can only raise taxes so far before it becomes null and void. It's pretty simple economics.

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, an extreme bias is showing in Boortz's articles. Not only does he leave information out, he flat out lies and deceives the reader.

Lies? Where?
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:56 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:What's the proposition then? Let the unemployed hang out to dry and not provide any financial aid to those in need?

There's such a thing as too much aid. Like welfare, too much aid can and does induce pople to lean on gov't.

But if the people need it, they need it. A large unemployment rate = a large amount of gov't aid.

Of course when the Recession is over and this doesn't decline, then it's time to be concerned.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Funny thing Boortz forgot to mention is that the states that are in the worst condition are the ones that are most heavily industrialized. When you have lots of industry, you'll get hit the hardest during a recession. Such things as layoffs cannot be prevented, no matter what Party is in power.

Not really accurate. The top 5 states in December were
Unions And Red Ink Chart_state_unemployment_012210.03

California has the highest state budget deficit at over $13 billion. Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and West Virginia have the lowest deficits... none at all. Cali is a heavy public union state and the state legislature is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

Hmmm... I wonder where MI ranks on that Forbes list then. MI is known to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the US though, even before the recession.
I think it's not fair to paint this as a bad picture and trying to demonize the unions. Look at the living conditions in most Democrat states, and you see that it's almost always better than those in Repub. states. This obviously doesn't come from nothing and it obviously needs a better management, but if it wasn't for the recession, I think people there would be pretty happy with the living conditions.
Cali is obviously an exception... it's more than extremely mismanaged.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The reason why Greece is bankrupt has nothing to do with Unions. It has to do with irresponsible gov't spending, nothing more.

That's right. But when 50% of it's citizens are employed by that gov't, how does one not go into debt? You gotta pay those salaries. You can only raise taxes so far before it becomes null and void. It's pretty simple economics.

Hmmmm I can find several German sources that say that only a little over 25% of Greeks worked for the gov't.
Anyways, the main reason why Greece is bankrupt is not due to unions, Greek government workers have actually taken several pay cuts over the last years, but because of corruption. Money went to people who didn't even exist, actual money that was spent was kept off the books, and because of that, the gov't kept spending and spending without knowing that they're spending themselves out of existence. Obviously only the people responsible for manipulating the books knew that...

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Once again, an extreme bias is showing in Boortz's articles. Not only does he leave information out, he flat out lies and deceives the reader.

Lies? Where?

To blame the Greek financial crisis on the Unions without ever mentioning the corruption, which is the true reason for the bankruptcy.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:45 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:But if the people need it, they need it. A large unemployment rate = a large amount of gov't aid.

Of course when the Recession is over and this doesn't decline, then it's time to be concerned.

Where do you stop? Where's the money come from? A lack of tax receipts deprives the states and the fed of money. But the fed prints more and more which leaves us more debt that has to be repaid. You're making it sound like 50% of the population is living in the streets.

If the fed keeps on with the printing money we don't have, we're going to see inflation like we've never seen before.

BubbleBliss wrote:Hmmm... I wonder where MI ranks on that Forbes list then. MI is known to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the US though, even before the recession.
I think it's not fair to paint this as a bad picture and trying to demonize the unions. Look at the living conditions in most Democrat states, and you see that it's almost always better than those in Repub. states. This obviously doesn't come from nothing and it obviously needs a better management, but if it wasn't for the recession, I think people there would be pretty happy with the living conditions.
Cali is obviously an exception... it's more than extremely mismanaged.

Not sure. I can't find data on MI.

It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership. "Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states," he says. "This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt."

A large percentage of states that have high poverty rates are also high in minorities. The US Census declared that in 2007 12.5% of all people (8.2% white people, 24.7% black people and 21.5% of all Hispanic people) lived in poverty. There's a correlation there whether you want to admit it or not. 12.5 % is nothing to sneeze at but it certainly isn't high.

BubbleBliss wrote:Hmmmm I can find several German sources that say that only a little over 25% of Greeks worked for the gov't.
Anyways, the main reason why Greece is bankrupt is not due to unions, Greek government workers have actually taken several pay cuts over the last years, but because of corruption. Money went to people who didn't even exist, actual money that was spent was kept off the books, and because of that, the gov't kept spending and spending without knowing that they're spending themselves out of existence. Obviously only the people responsible for manipulating the books knew that...

If i find more stats from Boortz, i'll let ya know.

BubbleBliss wrote:To blame the Greek financial crisis on the Unions without ever mentioning the corruption, which is the true reason for the bankruptcy.

Unions aren't corrupt? They are here.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:49 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:But if the people need it, they need it. A large unemployment rate = a large amount of gov't aid.

Of course when the Recession is over and this doesn't decline, then it's time to be concerned.

Where do you stop? Where's the money come from? A lack of tax receipts deprives the states and the fed of money. But the fed prints more and more which leaves us more debt that has to be repaid. You're making it sound like 50% of the population is living in the streets.

If the fed keeps on with the printing money we don't have, we're going to see inflation like we've never seen before.

Yeah, a balance needs to be found between expenses and tax income. Personally, I would cut every gov't salary about 1%-2% for every "normal" gov't worker and maybe 4%-5% for every higher level gov't worker. That'll give the state some room to breathe.
If that doesn't work, I'd add an extra 1%-2% income tax to all those making $500,000 or more. This would, of course, only be temporarily and be taken away once the recession is over and unemployment has leveled out.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Hmmm... I wonder where MI ranks on that Forbes list then. MI is known to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the US though, even before the recession.
I think it's not fair to paint this as a bad picture and trying to demonize the unions. Look at the living conditions in most Democrat states, and you see that it's almost always better than those in Repub. states. This obviously doesn't come from nothing and it obviously needs a better management, but if it wasn't for the recession, I think people there would be pretty happy with the living conditions.
Cali is obviously an exception... it's more than extremely mismanaged.

Not sure. I can't find data on MI.

It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership. "Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states," he says. "This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt."

Like I said, I think a balance needs to be found. Unions guarantee fair wages and a good work standard, however, they also guarantee large efficiency problems, as you've pointed out numerous times. Quite honestly, Unions need to ease up on the termination contract. It's hurting business and is keeping it from running efficiently.

TexasBlue wrote:

A large percentage of states that have high poverty rates are also high in minorities. The US Census declared that in 2007 12.5% of all people (8.2% white people, 24.7% black people and 21.5% of all Hispanic people) lived in poverty. There's a correlation there whether you want to admit it or not. 12.5 % is nothing to sneeze at but it certainly isn't high.

But the states with the most minorities are mostly Democratic states so that's not really relevant.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Hmmmm I can find several German sources that say that only a little over 25% of Greeks worked for the gov't.
Anyways, the main reason why Greece is bankrupt is not due to unions, Greek government workers have actually taken several pay cuts over the last years, but because of corruption. Money went to people who didn't even exist, actual money that was spent was kept off the books, and because of that, the gov't kept spending and spending without knowing that they're spending themselves out of existence. Obviously only the people responsible for manipulating the books knew that...

If i find more stats from Boortz, i'll let ya know.

Alright.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:To blame the Greek financial crisis on the Unions without ever mentioning the corruption, which is the true reason for the bankruptcy.

Unions aren't corrupt? They are here.

It's not Unions that are draining the country, it was high government officials. Congress members, etc. not the regular Joe Schmoe out in the street.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:02 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, a balance needs to be found between expenses and tax income. Personally, I would cut every gov't salary about 1%-2% for every "normal" gov't worker and maybe 4%-5% for every higher level gov't worker. That'll give the state some room to breathe.
If that doesn't work, I'd add an extra 1%-2% income tax to all those making $500,000 or more. This would, of course, only be temporarily and be taken away once the recession is over and unemployment has leveled out.

That's thew answer i hate. It always raising the taxes on the wealthy. It's counterproductive in the long run. If one's going to raise them, raise 'em on everyone who pays. The facts are that most people don't pay taxes anymore (federally).

BubbleBliss wrote:Like I said, I think a balance needs to be found. Unions guarantee fair wages and a good work standard, however, they also guarantee large efficiency problems, as you've pointed out numerous times. Quite honestly, Unions need to ease up on the termination contract. It's hurting business and is keeping it from running efficiently.

The inefficiency problems are more glaring now days than ever. I worked in a union plant for 2 and a half years. I saw it day in and day out.

BubbleBliss wrote:But the states with the most minorities are mostly Democratic states so that's not really relevant.

We're not talking about that. We're talking poverty rates. In that map in the followup post, it shows exactly where they are... which makes my point from earlier.[/quote]
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:51 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, a balance needs to be found between expenses and tax income. Personally, I would cut every gov't salary about 1%-2% for every "normal" gov't worker and maybe 4%-5% for every higher level gov't worker. That'll give the state some room to breathe.
If that doesn't work, I'd add an extra 1%-2% income tax to all those making $500,000 or more. This would, of course, only be temporarily and be taken away once the recession is over and unemployment has leveled out.

That's thew answer i hate. It always raising the taxes on the wealthy. It's counterproductive in the long run. If one's going to raise them, raise 'em on everyone who pays. The facts are that most people don't pay taxes anymore (federally).

Yeah, it's always raising taxes on the wealthy, they can afford it. They can still go out and buy new TVs, BluRay players, etc. whereas the Middle & Lower Class can't....

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Like I said, I think a balance needs to be found. Unions guarantee fair wages and a good work standard, however, they also guarantee large efficiency problems, as you've pointed out numerous times. Quite honestly, Unions need to ease up on the termination contract. It's hurting business and is keeping it from running efficiently.

The inefficiency problems are more glaring now days than ever. I worked in a union plant for 2 and a half years. I saw it day in and day out.

That's what I'm saying.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:But the states with the most minorities are mostly Democratic states so that's not really relevant.

We're not talking about that. We're talking poverty rates. In that map in the followup post, it shows exactly where they are... which makes my point from earlier.
[/quote]


You were saying that the reason why some Republican states are so poor is because they have a large number of minorities.... then I said that the states with the most minorities are mostly Democrats. I'm not catching your point here....
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:49 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, it's always raising taxes on the wealthy, they can afford it. They can still go out and buy new TVs, BluRay players, etc. whereas the Middle & Lower Class can't....

That's pure b.s. on both accounts. The poor have more sh!t these days than the poor did 50 years ago (thanks to generous welfare). And the rich? The middle class has plenty, despite what you say. And the rich? Oh, they can afford it. That's the same tired excuse. Looks like i'm going to have to post the IRS table on who pays the most taxes already and who doesn't.

That afford it excuse gets old. If you were to say that we need a flat tax rate with no deductions, i'd agree with you 100%. Liberals talk fairness... well. that's the fair way to do it. Everyone pay the same rate.

BubbleBliss wrote:You were saying that the reason why some Republican states are so poor is because they have a large number of minorities.... then I said that the states with the most minorities are mostly Democrats. I'm not catching your point here....

No, that's not what i said. I said the states with the worst poverty rates have a large concentration of minorities. Look at that map again (above). The darkest areas are the poorest areas. For instance, in Texas the poorest areas are along the border. Nuff said.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:29 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, it's always raising taxes on the wealthy, they can afford it. They can still go out and buy new TVs, BluRay players, etc. whereas the Middle & Lower Class can't....

That's pure b.s. on both accounts. The poor have more sh!t these days than the poor did 50 years ago (thanks to generous welfare). And the rich? The middle class has plenty, despite what you say. And the rich? Oh, they can afford it. That's the same tired excuse. Looks like i'm going to have to post the IRS table on who pays the most taxes already and who doesn't.

That afford it excuse gets old. If you were to say that we need a flat tax rate with no deductions, i'd agree with you 100%. Liberals talk fairness... well. that's the fair way to do it. Everyone pay the same rate.

Are you serious? In a time of financial crisis you'd actually be willing to tax the Middle and Lower class just because they "have plenty"? Consumer confidence is already in the toilet, what do you think more taxes would do to that?
The rich can still afford to live their lifestyle and they have the most money saved up anyways.

It's not an excuse, it's the truth. With great wealth comes responsibility, it's always been like that.

[quote="TexasBlue"]
BubbleBliss wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:You were saying that the reason why some Republican states are so poor is because they have a large number of minorities.... then I said that the states with the most minorities are mostly Democrats. I'm not catching your point here....

No, that's not what i said. I said the states with the worst poverty rates have a large concentration of minorities. Look at that map again (above). The darkest areas are the poorest areas. For instance, in Texas the poorest areas are along the border. Nuff said.

That map doesn't even say anything... for all I know the different shades of red was the frequency of people going to the bathroom...
And I have showed you that the states with the highest poverty rates do NOT have the largest concentrations of minorities.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:32 pm

The wealthy create prosperity. That's a fact. I never got a check from a poor person. The "progressive" tax system is socialist and damn near Marxist in itself.

The map is a factual map. The darkest red show where the most poverty is. It's not a state by state presentation. It shows where the poorest are. Where the densities are speaks for itself.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:06 pm

How does the personal income of somebody who makes $500,000+ create prosperity? Do you think his job is any more important than the mail man's?
How is this tax system Socialist?

I still don't see the point of you posting the map here. It clearly shows that Native Americans and rural, white Americans are the poorest, county wise.
All this map is doing is further proving my point. While the poverty rate in those states is higher and the standard of living & benefits is lower, they continuously vote Republican even though facts show that standards of living are higher in a lot of Democrat states.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:29 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:How does the personal income of somebody who makes $500,000+ create prosperity? Do you think his job is any more important than the mail man's?
How is this tax system Socialist?

Someone who makes that kind of money isn't a lap dog. A person that makes that kind of money more than likely runs a company or aids in running a company. Nobody does those jobs for 40 grand a year. It's always been like that here. The more you make, the bigger responsibility you have. It's why generals make alot of money compared to a private.

The system is socialist because it's part of the Communist Manifesto; progressive and heavy taxation!

BubbleBliss wrote:I still don't see the point of you posting the map here. It clearly shows that Native Americans and rural, white Americans are the poorest, county wise.
All this map is doing is further proving my point. While the poverty rate in those states is higher and the standard of living & benefits is lower, they continuously vote Republican even though facts show that standards of living are higher in a lot of Democrat states.

Geez. You're spinning it again! If you look at the map (south Texas for example), you'll see dark red. Those are the border counties... some of the poorest in the nation. Then you look at census data on who those people are. Then you look at the poorest areas of the Dakotas. Same thing. Exact same thing.

I'm NOT saying that no whites are poor or that they're not part of that map. But the census facts have been posted above on the percentage of each racial category!

Now, i'm not even being a racist or close to it. I'm pointing out reality and facts from the census bureau.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:10 pm

TexasBlue wrote:
BubbleBliss wrote:How does the personal income of somebody who makes $500,000+ create prosperity? Do you think his job is any more important than the mail man's?
How is this tax system Socialist?

Someone who makes that kind of money isn't a lap dog. A person that makes that kind of money more than likely runs a company or aids in running a company. Nobody does those jobs for 40 grand a year. It's always been like that here. The more you make, the bigger responsibility you have. It's why generals make alot of money compared to a private.

The system is socialist because it's part of the Communist Manifesto; progressive and heavy taxation!

So taxing his income has what effect on his company? A 1-3% increase in TEMPORARY taxes will not even put a dent in somebody's wallet who makes more than $500k a year. So they'll still have more responsibility and more money as well.

A 1-4% tax increase is heavy taxation?

But if not the rich, who is going to pay for the crisis? The Middle & Lower class? Cut welfare so the poor starve while the rich are buying themselves cars, houses, boats, etc.?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:I still don't see the point of you posting the map here. It clearly shows that Native Americans and rural, white Americans are the poorest, county wise.
All this map is doing is further proving my point. While the poverty rate in those states is higher and the standard of living & benefits is lower, they continuously vote Republican even though facts show that standards of living are higher in a lot of Democrat states.

Geez. You're spinning it again! If you look at the map (south Texas for example), you'll see dark red. Those are the border counties... some of the poorest in the nation. Then you look at census data on who those people are. Then you look at the poorest areas of the Dakotas. Same thing. Exact same thing.

I'm NOT saying that no whites are poor or that they're not part of that map. But the census facts have been posted above on the percentage of each racial category!

Now, i'm not even being a racist or close to it. I'm pointing out reality and facts from the census bureau.

Look at the post when you first referenced the poverty rate, then you understand why I don't see your point in posting this...
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:02 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:So taxing his income has what effect on his company? A 1-3% increase in TEMPORARY taxes will not even put a dent in somebody's wallet who makes more than $500k a year. So they'll still have more responsibility and more money as well.

A 1-4% tax increase is heavy taxation?

But if not the rich, who is going to pay for the crisis? The Middle & Lower class? Cut welfare so the poor starve while the rich are buying themselves cars, houses, boats, etc.?

They pay most of the taxes in this country to start with! Where you people get off saying that they don't pay their fair share is beyond me. Allow me;
Unions And Red Ink Guess210
That's an IRS table fer crissakes!


BubbleBliss wrote:Look at the post when you first referenced the poverty rate, then you understand why I don't see your point in posting this...

The point was/is that you said that the states with the highest poverty rates don't have the largest concentrations of minorities. That map shows where the highest concentration of poverty exists in the whole country. One can use state by state stats but that map shows that there are particular areas of poverty. Done been stated.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:24 pm

So what? I never said they don't pay their share, I'm only saying that they can afford to pay more taxes in a crisis like than. More so than Middle or Lower class citizens.

No, I said that the states with the MOST minorities aren't typically the poorest states, and that's a fact. Counties is a different question....
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:46 pm

They're paying their fair share and then some already. Tax them even more, and you're going to find those who won't go further. Want an example? Back in my trucking days, my old boss worked us hard (in the 80's). I put in 65 to 75 hours a week. One week i put in 84 hours. I saw what came out of my check in taxes and it was so obvious that it wasn't worth the last 7 hours i worked. My take home pay wasn't that much more than if i had put in 75 hours. It wasn't worth it. So, i told him i'll never do it again. Wealthy people can and will use that option. Some states are taxing the living sh!t out of th wealthy and business. Guess what? They're fleeing. They're going to where taxes are low or non-existent.

You have to get rid of that mindset. Taxing people because "they can afford it" will fail every time. The threat of higher taxes already under this administration is slowing any economic growth. Each tie Obama talks that sh!t, the Dow takes a dump.

Look at that table. They pay a very large share and you want them to pay more. That's silly.
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:19 pm

I guess we'll tax the middle class and drive down consumer confidence even more.... or we'll cut gov't funding and let some people get laid off, and let the poor suffer because their welfare is being cut.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:38 pm

BubbleBliss wrote:I guess we'll tax the middle class and drive down consumer confidence even more.... or we'll cut gov't funding and let some people get laid off, and let the poor suffer because their welfare is being cut.

Bwah. This from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)....
Unions And Red Ink Middle10

And this...
Unions And Red Ink 2009-f10

Your argument is getting thin. This here from usgovinfo.about.com.....

Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

* In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

* The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

* Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

* The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

* The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

* The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

[i]Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis[/i]
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:46 pm

THat's all nice and well but the fact is that job security is still not at its best level and consumer confidence is only picking up slowly. With a tax increase on the lower and middle class, these things will ground to a halt.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:12 am

Bama said he wasn't raising taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000. So, which is it?
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:49 pm

We're talking about California here, so it's state level first of all.
2nd of all, I said that it's a temporary tax increase for those making $500,000 or more a year.
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by TexasBlue on Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:17 pm

But the discussion morphed into the national level. That's obvious from the above posts. Nice side-step. Very Happy
TexasBlue
TexasBlue

Unions And Red Ink Admin210


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by BubbleBliss on Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:01 pm

Maybe with you it did, but I was talking on a national level the whole time. Whether you tax the rich on a national or state level doesn't make a difference in the debate of whether it's appropriate or not...
BubbleBliss
BubbleBliss

Unions And Red Ink Junmem10


Back to top Go down

Unions And Red Ink Empty Re: Unions And Red Ink

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top


 :: Main :: Politics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum