Your post contradicts itself. We need more revenues from the rich, but the rich won't actually pay any more. How can a thinking person make such an obviously contradictory statement?
Donald Luskin points out something nobody's even talking about.
"After year-end, under current law, the top dividend tax rate will rise to 43.4% from 15%. That's not only because the temporary low 15% rate granted under the 2001 Bush tax cuts will revert to the prior rate of 39.6%. In addition, a provision of ObamaCare slaps a 3.8% surtax on all forms of investment income, including dividends—the resulting total is 43.4%."
And "About a quarter of all dividends are earned by individuals taxed at the top rate."
Seems like this has to affect dividend paying stocks.
Hoover didn't "do nothing" contrary to what's been inserted into your brain. He massively increased taxes rates. He did lots of other things as well. FDR actually just continued on Hoover's path.
Obama signed an extension of "Ws tax cuts" genius. They would have already expired by now. He said it would be bad for the economy if they expired.
You seem to have a second grade reading comprehension. The article simply points out the recession ended before any of Obama's policies had gone into effect. Your brain doesn't seem to be able to absorb basic factual information like that.
What's the wars got to do with the recession? Or are you changing the subject in typical Democrat Attention Deficit Disorder fashion? FYI we're still in Afghanistan.
I think witnesses who support his side of the story will likely fear for their safety, and the jurors should they acquit him. The story in the Orlando papers is that it's because of the testimony of the witness or witnesses that the authorities in Orlando didn't charge him with a crime.
I recall after the police were acquitted in the Rodney King case back in the early 90's the NY Times suddenly published their home addresses.
Now that the Pres. has already injected himself into this, one would think he would issue a statement deploring this. I mean isn't that what we would expect of the first black President who was touted (ridiculously for anyone who understood his background) as a unifier? He has so far said NOTHING. The only way it'll happen is if he thinks his previous inappropriate statements were hurting him politically IMO.
There's a video of him introducing (and hugging) Harvard Prof. Derrick Bell at a rally when he was a student there.
"He was the father of a fringe legal theory called the critical race theory, which states first that racial discrimination can never be eliminated; and second, that the constitutional and legal system is based on racism -- loaded with it -- and is therefore uncorrectable. which holds that the gains for blacks under civil rights laws since the 60's were illusory and nothing has really changed."
The New Black Panther Party is calling for a $10,000 bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch captain who shot and killed an unarmed teenager last month.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," the Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad said Saturday at a rally in Sanford, Fla., where Trayvon Martin was killed Feb. 26, according to Fox News.
Zimmerman has claimed he shot Martin in self-defense, but the New Black Panthers are calling for mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman, who has gone into hiding, the Orlando Sentinel reported.
My point on their using the alleged Medicare savings (most of which will probably not materialize) to show lower Medicare deficits is that they double counted the savings in Orwellian fashion.
I don't think it's anything against me personally. I think it's the subject of this particular post they don't like. There's zippo about the Obamacare tax hikes in the major news media. Some people like living in a fools paradise.
And while we're on the topic of Obamacare, the CBO now says 20 million people may lose their employer provided coverage as a result.
Why are you singling out my post among the many others not directly related to PBR here? Do you want me to link to a few?
Seriously, there's many posts here about all sorts of things and yet for SOME REASON, this is the one that doesn't belong. Now what could that reason be?
I don't see how that even addresses what we've been arguing about. It seems more about trying to discern specific elements of theology in his public statements. I have no idea what it means calling him "socially tolerant" and it doesn't explain it. Is it the fact he got divorced?
Of course he didn't go into theological details - although he most certainly did talk about evil. Santorum who you seem to think inserts religion into his statements in some unprecedented way doesn't go into theological details either. Any point you make about Santorum being excessively religious would apply to Reagan, as would Santorum's views on specific social issues, every one - unless Reagan's divorce is supposed to be the big difference.
Just tell me one thing: What do you think of the "squeal rule" that Reagan discussed in his Evil Empire speech? Does it scare you?
Here is his description:
An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.
For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed "sexually active" -- and that has replaced the word "promiscuous" -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.
Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation's leading newspapers has created the term "squeal rule" in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.
I know you're committed to your Reagan wasn't really religious narrative but I just want to know if a politician who supports that specific policy scares you out of your wits to the point where you'd vote for Obama over him.
Actually the salaried employees lost 70% of their pensions and all their life and health insurance. The union employees retain everything.
But how does one survive after losing the unemployment benefits? One way to pay the bills however is to file for and receive the federal disability benefits - assuming of course one has a disability.
JPMorgan: As of January over 8.5 million individuals were receiving federal disability payments (an additional 2 million spouses and children of disabled workers also received disability payments). Since the onset of the recession and the subsequent slow recovery, this figure has accelerated and grown faster than the overall size of the potential labor force— currently 5.3% of the population aged 25-64 is on federal disability, up from 4.5% when the recession began.
JPMorgan points out that increases in the number of disability benefits recipients account for about a quarter of the decline in employment participation. Furthermore during recessions the number of new disability claims actually increases, even though the number of jobs with higher injury incidence (such as construction) generally declines. Try explaining that one... Half of the benefit recipients suffer from "mental disorders" and "musculoskeletal disorders" (such as back pain). "Mood disorders" alone account for over 10% of this group. And once someone starts receiving these benefits, it's almost impossible to take the off the program. In 2011 only 1% of the recipients lost their benefits because they were no longer deemed disabled. So how much is this program costing the US taxpayer? Apparently quite a bit.
JPMorgan: The cost to the federal budget of these programs has escalated along with the number of claimants, and now runs around $200 billion per year—more than the budgets of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and State combined.
Thus a quarter of people who drop out of the workforce and come off the unemployment benefits, simply move to receiving disability payments. And most stay there until they roll into the social security program when they retire - from their disability. The same source, a different program.