groups

Now i have no answer but b0tth partys are basically making the same mistake: the republicam when they ertr in power saw cutting taxes as a qay to deal with pur budget mess
Thr Democrats see either changing or adding new taxes. Why isn't there some compromise way of doing this?

posted by yichel
There is a compromise Yichel. It's called ( Jobs ). America's economy is directly linked to the number of jobs lost over the past 3 decades. That also includes wages and benefits, the loss of industries, and the ability to produce and export. When more Americans work and earn a living wage, more shoulders bare the burden of taxes. The idea of cutting taxes in a shrinking economy forces state and federal governments to cut programs that have come back to bite us in the ass.

The common denominator is jobs and living wages. That is the compromise Yichel

That was ass backwards Charles. And coming from someone that makes $12/hour..."America's economy is directly linked to the number of jobs lost over the past 3 decades"
Try the past year and a half.
Charles, you have no idea what you are talking about; You are a joke

That was ass backwards Charles. And coming from someone that makes $12/hour..."America's economy is directly linked to the number of jobs lost over the past 3 decades"
Try the past year and a half.
Charles, you have no idea what you are talking about; You are a joke

posted by tjbr52

I find that I must agree in part with your assessment TJ. I know diddily about economics.
Which is why I try to educate myself with the basics. But taken from a guy who use to make $18.00 dollars an hour working as a welder for a company called Thrall Car Manufacturing that closed it's doors in 2002 and moved it's operations to Mexico and Europe, I think I have a unique perspective of what I am taking about as it relates to my experience.

" And then there is the little matter of GDP ( Gross Domestic Product ) that measures the viability of a country or nation to support itself.

The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI), a basic measure of an economy's economic performance, is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year. [1] GDP can be defined in three ways, all of which are conceptually identical. First, it is equal to the total expenditures for all final goods and services produced within the country in a stipulated period of time (usually a 365-day year). Second, it is equal to the sum of the value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) by all the industries within a country, plus taxes less subsidies on products, in the period. Third, it is equal to the sum of the income generated by production in the country in the period—that is, compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, and gross operating surplus (or profits).[2] [3]"
view link

So maybe to you I am a joke. That's fine. And maybe to you my understanding of things is a joke. That to is also fine. However I live this " joke " everyday of my life at $8.00 an hour and do not find it very funny. So being that you are more enlighten and versed in how things in economics works, perhaps you should be talking to the White House and impart your wisdom on those who can actually do something about this as opposed to wasting your time with ( I ) who is obviously beneath you.

Your comment, as usual tj, makes no sense. As a result you start calling people names or try to put them down. People paying taxes is no small part of government revenue. That is why 8 years of continued tax cuts hurt our economy. The loss of jobs exasperated that.

Comment deleted by an Administrator

Taking just a few points from the post, 5% is a good yield on money. We are accustomed to being charged outrageous fees by banks so they can make mega billions in profit. A banker and mortgage man both told me that a 1 1/2% spread is adequate to make a good profit.

Taxing fuel burdens the user, raises prices and drags down the entire economy. One of the contributing factors to our rapid growth has been cheap fuel. When one goes to raise revenue, one should not do it in a manner that will cripple industry and therefore the economy.

One can change the tax code to increase revenues, raise taxes from portions of the population that are paying little to none, close loopholes, come up with a flat tax, stimulate production -- a myriad number of ways. We may just be in for a revision of the tax code, long needed.

"People paying taxes is no small part of government revenue. That is why 8 years of continued tax cuts hurt our economy. The loss of jobs exasperated that. "

that might be the reazon the goverment collect taxes from non citizens that cannot live (and for sure work) in the US

Trip,

TJs comments about cap and trade are similar the nonsense Republicans put out about the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

• "Cap and trade" harnesses the forces of markets to achieve cost-effective environmental protection. Markets can achieve superior environmental protection by giving businesses both flexibility and a direct financial incentive to find faster, cheaper and more innovative ways to reduce pollution.

• Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

• The following points highlight some real world results of that program:

• The Acid Rain Experience

• Unprecedented Environmental Protection at Unmatched Cost Efficiency

• The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $650-$850 (in 2000 dollars). The actual market has been between $100 and $200 for most of the program.

• In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program.

• On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just 20 to 30 percent of the forecasts

Once in a blue moon, in America, the people come together and do something ‘right’ that makes us all more equal within the borders of our nation. These slow coming changes always concern the legalities of personal choices that give us a better balance of the power of the people which is meant to be, ultimately, the true guiding force of our government. We are held in check by our government and our government is held in check by our Constitution. In the matter of finance, however, there can never be a balance of power because it ‘takes money to make money’. The less actual capital one has to invest the greater the debt one must assume in any effort to raise themselves above their monetary station in life. This is true of governments as well. The same is true with any barter (trade) system. If one has little to trade one must sign a marker giving the loaner ownership of something more ‘valuable’ on the open market than the loan is worth. Some people who originally came to America had big dreams that made them rich….less had readily available monetary and/or brutal strength they built on. Today our dreams are still our true riches but fewer of us have any dreams that don’t center on the accumulation of capital. The money lenders have, from the beginning, entrenched themselves in our government and are loathe to relinquish their grip on the financial laws that govern our society. Beginning with, perhaps, expanding the right to vote from only white male land owners to every citizen we have sought to throw money grubbers out of power. Every fight has been harder fought than the last because too many Americans have bought into the idea that money, or having an excess of things to get more credit for to appear wealthier, has become the symbol of success. This thought, I think, is what makes us all a bit conservative. I also believe this thought is, and always will be, what drives more conservative politicians to win control of our government. They will win by hook or crook and what they say is, and must be, based on lies and rhetoric. I say this because the financial policies of the more conservative politicians always fail the average American and being a good snake oil sells person requires lying. There is no way to have financial security, much less financial equality, as long as the money lenders control the government that makes the laws controlling barters.