…

Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the world and has prospered because of it. Obama should consider reducing our corporate
rate to be on par with or below that of Ireland. It could help reduce the deficit and an unemployment. It could end outsourcing by American companies. Also, Obama should consider resurrecting enterprise zones. It would encourage entrpreneurship by giving additional incentives for manufacturers and service providers to locate in the inner cities to reduce unemployment, especially among the minorites. Foreign companies would see it as advantageous to move the bulk of their business to the U.S. It is prefereable to have foreign capital investing in the private sector rather than buy our debt.

President Obama’s assault on Medicare Advantage will fix that.

“What? Private insurance pays faster, better, with less fraud than the government? We can’t have that!”

But then again, maybe you won’t be affected by it unless you work in manufacturing, use electricity, or buy products that were transported by truck.

Any day now, PissJ.

And, as some 2/3 of the US economy is consumer spending, the increased demand for goods and services boosts the overall ecponmic health.

What the hell is “ecponmic” health? Just thought I’d beat Boob to it.

You’d be hard pressed to find a credible economist that disagrees in principle with the stimulus and tax plan.

I found over 200:

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/final_cato_stimulusad_wpost.pdf

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/jan/13/opinion/chi-0113edit2jan13

Would you mind pointing out how each of these aren’t “credible”? You’ll note James Buchanan is on there. He’s got a Nobel Prize. Liberals believe EVERYBODY with a Nobel Prize.

Wake up kids, that crap about tax cuts and dregulation and trickle down have all been proven wrong. That’s all, it’
is nothing but bullspucky the Republican party sold you. You gotta stop drinking the KoolAid.

So California, New York, Michigan, New Jersey etc. are economic paradises that everybody rushes to? Can you explain to me how states with no state tax fair better than those who do?

Finally, can you explain to me how trickle up poverty benefits us?

I look forward to your reply to each and every point.

You and your fellow Obama Party members want to hand out welfare checks to Americans of $10, which you then fund by increasing taxes on businesses and corporations by $12.

Since corporations and businesses now have increased expenses of $12, they have to raise their prices by $12 to stay at the same level that they were before. You may have $10 more to spend, but the price of goods you are buying has gone up by $12 due to the increased cost.

If you want to see what handing out welfare checks and punishing “the rich” and businesses does, go to Europe; it results in sclerotic economies, low growth, rampant unemployment, and extensive dissent among people who are shut out of the job market because companies are so heavily taxed that they can’t afford more workers.

Projection is the main psychological thought process of the Obama Party.

The President’s plan gives working class families the biggest tax cuts in history. Period. That means you, my friends will directly benefit. And, as some 2/3 of the US economy is consumer spending, the increased demand for goods and services boosts the overall ecponmic health. You’d be hard pressed to find a credible economist that disagrees in principle with the stimulus and tax plan.

Wake up kids, that crap about tax cuts and dregulation and trickle down have all been proven wrong. That’s all, it’
is nothing but bullspucky the Republican party sold you. You gotta stop drinking the KoolAid.

The one thing evil, putrid, stinking-rich bastards can do in the face of punitive economic policy is choose not to participate. So when jet-riding, tax-evading congresscritters decide to punish some company for buying a Citation X, we can all feel good when some metalworker in Wichita loses his job as a result.

Economic justice indeed.

When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare. – Kershner’s First Law

I thought President Obama would wait at least until his third year in office to raise taxes. Well, I was wrong.

Why did GPW think it? Because, as you admit, Obama campaigned on the idea of only raising taxes passively, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. Why does GPW man up and admit he was wrong to think it? *Because the news here – “news” meaning “what’s new” – is that Obama wants to raise some taxes sooner and more aggressively than that*. Or as GPW put it:

[Obama] is not even waiting until his third month in office to propose hiking those “fees” the government takes from us:

[The Washington Post:] President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget… raising taxes on business and the wealthy…

How is Obama already going to increase taxes now, in addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Again, according to The Washington Post, Obama:

proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. [ed. translation: Obama will be aggressively trying to squeeze more from corporations, a job-destroying move as U.S. corporate taxes are already 2nd-highest in the world]
And Obama’s budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers [at a significantly higher rate... ed: a tax increase!]…

Is that waiting until 2011? No. Further, according to the Post:

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013…

Can anyone honestly say for one second that Obama campaigned on that? Did Obama say in the debates, for example, “We need to increase government’s share of the economy”? Hell no.

It has happened before: It was called The Great Depression. Two tax-raising big spenders, Hoover and Roosevelt together, jacked up the highest tax bracket in a series of steps to 90% and made it impossible for business people to go to the bathroom without asking Washington’s permission… and, in the process, the two of them turned an ordinary recession into a 13-year crisis of 15%+ unemployment rates that could only be ended by a World War.

(~~And yes, Obama and his policies created this crisis. The present crisis has been caused by years of excessive spending and debt, including the “progressive” lending policies of the real estate bubble / subprime mortgage crisis. As Senator since 2004, Obama raised not a peep of protest against those things. As Presidential candidate, Obama staffed his campaign with the very people from Fannie and Freddie who created the crisis and personally profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. As President, Obama has (1) done nothing to investigate and punish those people, making them return their ill-gotten gains; (2) **redoubled** America’s deficit spending and debt creation. Now he proposes to rein in just the tiniest part of that… not by ending the ripoffs of the American people… but by further increasing, i.e., raising taxes to punishing levels.)

your argument is even worse than your spelling, fyi.

at times, there does appear to be a correspondance between lower capital gains taxes and economic growth. but, at best, the data considered in total suggests that the capital gains tax rate has a negligible and unpredictable impact on economic growth.