Middle class strikes back at Obama
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Propaganda.
Childishness...
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Anyone who finds the above message difficult to understand is someone who could not find his head unless he has the use of both hands. Anyone who rejects the obviousness offered here is intellect-challenged.
KS
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Were you planning on constructing an actual argument, or are you simply post whoring, trolling, or just lazy?
Try Econ 101 first. It will help you avoid future embarrassment on this forum.
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's a thought. Rather than "trolling" you tell me how it isn't Propaganda, and then I'll respond.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
No, you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. That is a logically flawed argument. The Mary Mapes School of Journalism doesn't apply here.
You made the claim that it is propaganda. Please back up your claim or you are a troll.
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Until you have something to say that will dismiss my claim, I will stand by my notion of it being propaganda
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Okay, Mary. If you're not interested in constructing an actual argument, then it is safe to dismiss your claim as invalid due to lack of actual evidence backing it up. Thus, you are trolling. The information in the video stands unchallenged so far, your short and empty sentences notwithstanding.Until you have something to say that will dismiss my claim, I will stand by my notion of it being propaganda
It is painfully obvious that you really don't know the first thing about economics, as you cannot even comment on the content of the video. I doubt you even know what propaganda means. (But I'm sure you will look it up now, for the first time!)
So, aren't these people supporting supply side or trickle down? These policies have been proven twice in the last 30 years not to work. I am not great on economics, but I do know that it certainly appears historically that supply side just doesn't work.
The Reagan/W. Bush economic policy of "leave no millionaire behind" just doesn't seem to work in creating jobs. Mostly what is seems to do is increase the national debt, and create a dwindling middle class.
Oddly, during the Clinton administration, when he raised taxes on the rich and corporations, and stopped much of the slashing of taxes throughout the economic strata there were big gains in jobs, especially in high paying jobs.
Giving tax cuts to the likes of Kenneth Lay, Richard Fuld, and Joe Nacchio has not led to job development. And John McCain wants to follow the same, proven flawed, ideas.
Instead of giving tax cuts to the rich when he first assumed office, President Bush should have used the budget surplus he inherited from the Clinton administration to pay down more of the national debt accrued under the Reagan administration.
In 1993, after the Clinton administration had pushed through an increase in taxes on upper-income families, the 'Newtster' predicted a severe recession. Forbes magazine urged readers to get out of the stock market to avoid the inevitable crash. The Wall Street Journal thought that the tax increases would increase the deficit instead of reducing it.
If supply side economics were true - during the Clinton years we should have actually gone into a severe recession or even a depression. Well, we didn't. American had some of the strongest economic growth ever during the Clinton years.
And a couple of tiny things that I have kept from things I have read (in hopes to understand this better.
In 1980s, the start of supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations under Reagan, per capita revenue from personal income taxes, adjusted for inflation, rose just 0.5 percent annually, according to the Office of Management and Budget.That was far below the average annual increase of 6.3 percent in the eight years of the Clinton administration when tax rates at the high end of the income ladder were raised. Since 2002, with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in place, the annual per capita increase was 2.3 percent.
That is pretty dismal.
Also the fact that there will be more jobs is a fallacy as well. During the Reagan years employment growth averaged 2.1 percent per year. During the Clinton years it was 2.5 percent growth per year. During the abysmal Bush years it has just been .6 percent per year.
So maybe those 'middle class' Americans in the video should look at historical content, and label this as what it is... Failed economic policy.
Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me. Now what happens if we are fooled again?
Oh, Monsieur Napoleon, you should say something other than screaming out 'propaganda'. It is a form of propaganda as all political ads are. But propaganda lives on as truth unless someone comes along and at least tries to show that it could be wrong.
The Reagan/W. Bush economic policy of "leave no millionaire behind" just doesn't seem to work in creating jobs. Mostly what is seems to do is increase the national debt, and create a dwindling middle class.
Oddly, during the Clinton administration, when he raised taxes on the rich and corporations, and stopped much of the slashing of taxes throughout the economic strata there were big gains in jobs, especially in high paying jobs.
Giving tax cuts to the likes of Kenneth Lay, Richard Fuld, and Joe Nacchio has not led to job development. And John McCain wants to follow the same, proven flawed, ideas.
Instead of giving tax cuts to the rich when he first assumed office, President Bush should have used the budget surplus he inherited from the Clinton administration to pay down more of the national debt accrued under the Reagan administration.
In 1993, after the Clinton administration had pushed through an increase in taxes on upper-income families, the 'Newtster' predicted a severe recession. Forbes magazine urged readers to get out of the stock market to avoid the inevitable crash. The Wall Street Journal thought that the tax increases would increase the deficit instead of reducing it.
If supply side economics were true - during the Clinton years we should have actually gone into a severe recession or even a depression. Well, we didn't. American had some of the strongest economic growth ever during the Clinton years.
And a couple of tiny things that I have kept from things I have read (in hopes to understand this better.
In 1980s, the start of supply-side tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations under Reagan, per capita revenue from personal income taxes, adjusted for inflation, rose just 0.5 percent annually, according to the Office of Management and Budget.That was far below the average annual increase of 6.3 percent in the eight years of the Clinton administration when tax rates at the high end of the income ladder were raised. Since 2002, with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in place, the annual per capita increase was 2.3 percent.
That is pretty dismal.
Also the fact that there will be more jobs is a fallacy as well. During the Reagan years employment growth averaged 2.1 percent per year. During the Clinton years it was 2.5 percent growth per year. During the abysmal Bush years it has just been .6 percent per year.
So maybe those 'middle class' Americans in the video should look at historical content, and label this as what it is... Failed economic policy.
Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me. Now what happens if we are fooled again?
Oh, Monsieur Napoleon, you should say something other than screaming out 'propaganda'. It is a form of propaganda as all political ads are. But propaganda lives on as truth unless someone comes along and at least tries to show that it could be wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Firstly, you should really look at using another word other then troll. Secondly since you still can't dismiss my claim and feel the need to suggest that I haven't the slightest clue in regards to the meaning of Propaganda or economics shows your ignorance (another flaw).
As taken from Wikipedia:
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
The video which you posted falls into the category I'd call Propaganda, because as per its definition the video selectively provides information in a manner to influence individuals without giving them the whole story. The video spreads the message that Obama is lieing to the middle class and will "drastically" raise taxes on large companies. What the video fails to mention is that Obama's tax plan would effectively end tax breaks that support companies who outsource jobs overseas (which hurts the economy). Obama will give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in America which not only helps stimulate the economy but helps middle class workers/families because it creates jobs here at home. Like I said Propaganda.
As taken from Wikipedia:
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
The video which you posted falls into the category I'd call Propaganda, because as per its definition the video selectively provides information in a manner to influence individuals without giving them the whole story. The video spreads the message that Obama is lieing to the middle class and will "drastically" raise taxes on large companies. What the video fails to mention is that Obama's tax plan would effectively end tax breaks that support companies who outsource jobs overseas (which hurts the economy). Obama will give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in America which not only helps stimulate the economy but helps middle class workers/families because it creates jobs here at home. Like I said Propaganda.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You are spouting rhetoric. I'm still waiting for facts. Define "work." What is the goal of cutting taxes? To stimulate economic growth. Anybody who looks at the numbers can see that the last 6 years has had tremendous economic growth for this country, and it coincides with the tax cuts.
The same thing happened during the Reagan years.
Check the figures. Your memory isn't working correctly.
A cow cannot survive by feeding only on its own udder.
More rhetoric. You're confusing tax cuts with spending. It is true that cutting taxes cannot happen without cutting spending, but you need to also examine the data that shows the gross receipts of federal revenues since the tax cuts. It's higher than any level in history.
Yes, that was odd. However, it doesn't disprove supply side economics.
Again, more emoting and rhetoric. Did you know that I got a tax cut from Bush, and that Obama is going to let that tax cut expire, thus givine ME a tax increase? It is a fact that when businesses are taxed, they raise prices, which means MIDDLE CLASS consumers pay the bill. Businesses also cut jobs and hoard cash. How does that help the economy, and how does that increase federal revenues? It doesn't.
Again, there WAS NO SURPLUS. That was rhetoric, much like your entire post. Besides, by definition, isn't a TAX SURPLUS the same thing as OVERCONFISCATION? I'm finding it hard to believe that you ever really read Atlas Shrugged.
Cherry picking Newt's words as proof of your thesis? That's rather thin. You fail to recall that America was actually coming up from the Bush 41 recession in the last quarter of 1992, but Clinton took credit for it.
I'd like to see a source for those numbers.
And I'd like to hear one example of a country that successfully taxed itself into prosperity.
For starters, let's remember what things were like when Reagan took over. In 1980, inflation was running at 13.5 percent, the prime lending rate stood at 21.5 percent, unemployment and poverty were rising, real income and productivit were falling, and real economic growth had ceased. Who was the previous President? OH YEAH! JIMMY CARTER!
By the way, the net jobs created during the Reagan years totaled nearly TWENTY MILLION.
The problem with the deficit was the Congress' overspending during those years. Who was in charge of Congress? OH YEAH! The Democrats!
From the Heritage Foundation:
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Fair enough fox 
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
Fox, as you said this is propaganda. I think napoleon just wants to hold fossten to the same standard he's being held to:
This ad has absolutely no substance, there is a mention of "history has shown..", but they don't present anything. So if fossten is right, this claim can be dismissed as invalid due to lack of actual evidence backing it up.
I'm sure napoleon is just frustrated with all the propaganda that is posted in this forum and presented as factual truth.
This ad has absolutely no substance, there is a mention of "history has shown..", but they don't present anything. So if fossten is right, this claim can be dismissed as invalid due to lack of actual evidence backing it up.
I'm sure napoleon is just frustrated with all the propaganda that is posted in this forum and presented as factual truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not giving him that much credit.
And you're missing the point. If he's going to debate this, do it on the merits of the issues and the claims, instead of broad-brushing it. Fox knows how to do this, and apparently she's the only lib in the entire forum that does.
Furthermore, the ad DOES have substance, if you have COMMON SENSE. Everybody who knows anything about business (which can exclude most Congresscritters with a 'D' after their names) understands what happens when you raise corporate taxes. Anybody who doesn't has never run a business.
aztecknight
Active LVC Member
You are correct, I have no common sense, I know nothing about business, and I don't understand what happens when you raise corporate taxes. Do you? Can you please show me? Show me facts and data of what happens to salaries, jobs, and the economy when we raise corporate taxes.
BTW, my wife and I do run a small seasonal business in addition to our jobs. You'll be happy to know she's a conservative. I'm working on her though.
BTW, my wife and I do run a small seasonal business in addition to our jobs. You'll be happy to know she's a conservative. I'm working on her though.
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Fossten, feel free to take a minute to step out of your box and read this. Further evidence regarding why your video is propaganda.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Ok..you cited a source... now connect the dots. I think you are siting a source beyond you knowledge.
How does any of this counter any claim in the video? I don't see any inconsistencies, outside of the vague spin on the Obama plan being different then the take on it in the video. But when you get down to specifics in the plan, do they support the view in the video, or the broad interpretation in the first part of the plan?
The specifics of the Obama plan are more in line with what tie video shows. The outcomes are different. But, if you know anything about the economy (and the video spells out what you need to know pretty well), it is clear the the specifics of Obama's lead to the outcome in the video, not the spin by Obama.
napoleon1072
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, and??...
The dots are not connected in your post. You are just trying to claim that the video is propaganda when the facts do not support that conclusion.
For something to be propaganda, it has to "lie by omission". What relevant facts are missing? The facts you cite are tangential at best. They are not relevant and only serve as a red herring. No including those facts is only logical. Not citing irrelevant facts does not make it propaganda. Only cherry picking among relevant facts to distort the picture of reality in your favor is propaganda.
The facts you cite will, at best, only offset to a small degree the competitive advantage that other businesses have in getting cheaper labor overseas (which is a big part of why Ford, GM and Chrysler are having a hard time competing with Asian car makers). Those businesses who move overseas also benifit from a reduced corporate tax (the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world). It will not "help the middle class worker" and "Create jobs" as you claim.
Your link also doesn't say how much Obama is going to cut and/or change the taxes for businesses by. It is going to have to be a lot to make it equally competitive to keep jobs in the U.S.
Can you make a logical argument that the video is propaganda? If so, I am waiting to see it.
Here are some facts to consider (from here):
- Senator Obama's [plan] does not extend the [Bush tax] cuts for the top two rates [effectively a tax increase]...While there is some uncertainty about the details of his plan, Obama campaign materials indicate that the tax rates in the top two brackets would increase to their pre-EGTRRA levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The phase-out of deductions and exemptions for tax:qpayers in the top brackets would also be re-enacted, which would further increase the top marginal tax rate. Tax rates on capital gains and dividends would also increase up to 20 percent for those filing in the top two brackets.
- Senator Obama would impose a new tax on those who earn more than $250,000 a year, which would be dedi:qcated to paying for Social Security.
- Jobs respond more to McCain's plan than to Obama's. Job growth over the 10-year forecast horizon is more than twice as high under McCain's plan than under Obama's. Total employment grows an average of 915,800 jobs under Obama, and by 2,126,000 under McCain. Both plans encourage job creation in each year of the forecast, but McCain's approach leads to sig:qnificantly larger job growth, and sooner. By 2018, McCain's plan, which makes the Bush tax reduc:qtions permanent and lowers the tax rate on cor:qporate profits, creates an additional 3,426,500 jobs. Senator Obama, however, raises taxes on many of the economy's key investors and busi:qness owners. Job growth under his plan for that same year is lower, at 1,576,200.
- Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan. Senator McCain's plan yields consistently higher forecasts of economic output than does Senator Obama's. Increases in gross domestic product (GDP) under McCain are, on average, nearly three times higher than under Obama. The growth rate of the economy increases a full half percentage point in 2011 and 2012, when taxes will increase under cur:qrent law. Under McCain's plan, the average annualized GDP growth rate increases by 0.3 percent. The Obama plan also leads to higher rates of economic growth as a result of making some parts of the Bush tax reductions perma:qnent. The economy as measured by GDP grows modestly more than does the CBO baseline: Growth rates are 0.1 percent higher on average for the 10-year period. By 2018, GDP is $320.7 billion (after inflation) higher under the McCain plan than under Obama's.
- More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama. Using the same model to evaluate both plans, our analysis shows that a family of four will have an average of $5,138 more in disposable income under McCain's plan, and $3,631 more under Obama's. This average increase in disposable income is the combination of lower taxes on the average family, higher employment, and increased growth under both plans. By 2018, family-of-four disposable income under McCain is forecast to be $9,750 (after infla:qtion) higher than baseline. This same family unit would see its inflation-adjusted disposable income surpass the baseline by $5,620 under Senator Obama's plan.
- many aspects of Senator Obama's tax plan generate little economic activity and could actually reduce economic incentives. Senator Obama raises the marginal tax rate on many low- and mid:qdle-income taxpayers. Senior citizens also bear a significantly higher tax burden when they declare more than $50,000 in annual income, so seniors are strongly encouraged to work less. Other tax credits, such as one for homeowners who do not itemize, only benefit existing homeowners and spark little additional economic activity.
- many aspects of Senator Obama's tax plan generate little economic activity and could actually reduce economic incentives. Senator Obama raises the marginal tax rate on many low- and mid:qdle-income taxpayers. Senior citizens also bear a significantly higher tax burden when they declare more than $50,000 in annual income, so seniors are strongly encouraged to work less. Other tax credits, such as one for homeowners who do not itemize, only benefit existing homeowners and spark little additional economic activity.
- Tax credits can boost short-term consumption and employment, but tax credits do not change basic incentives to work, save, or invest. Workers and investors are given no reason to work or invest more in response to the tax credits. Furthermore, tax cred:qits complicate the tax code, making it less efficient...Since over one-third of Senator Obama's tax plan consists of demand-side stimulus through tax cred:qits, economic growth is not as strong as it would be under a similar size tax cut that changed work or savings incentives.
- Senator Obama's plan increases economic growth compared to the baseline because his plan reduces the tax on capital below baseline forecasts and cuts the marginal tax rates for many workers. However, economic growth is also constrained by higher taxes for many individuals and small businesses. Tax credits do not produce the same economic growth as rate cuts or tax simplification.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Reality
Fox-y, my poor little small-medium business is weighted down with taxes. (I live in Michigan, one of the least friendly-to-business states out of 50.) Now add to my tax burden and I must choose a way to pay the extra. I choose to lay off several workers and add their work load to that of my remaining people. Who has benefited? Not my employees---either the lost ones or the remaining ones. And I have surely not benefited. My quality has taken a hit both because my people have less time to produce each 'widget' and because they are annoyed at losing some of their colleagues and also having to work somewhat harder.
The only entity to benefit is the government, who now have more (tax) money to hand out in the way of 'entitlements'---as a way of buying votes from the have-nots.
I don't care what label you put on things---this scenario is reality. It doesn't take any academic exploration. It's simply reality.
On the other hand, if the government gets off my back and allows me to plow my profits into my company, I may well be able to put money into upgrades so that I can create more widgets. This'll mean that I have to buy more machines and tooling, and hire more people to do the work.
This also is reality.
Because this is reality, the only way you can possibly nay-say it is to choose a period in time when there hasn't been tome for this reality to work.
KS
Fox-y, my poor little small-medium business is weighted down with taxes. (I live in Michigan, one of the least friendly-to-business states out of 50.) Now add to my tax burden and I must choose a way to pay the extra. I choose to lay off several workers and add their work load to that of my remaining people. Who has benefited? Not my employees---either the lost ones or the remaining ones. And I have surely not benefited. My quality has taken a hit both because my people have less time to produce each 'widget' and because they are annoyed at losing some of their colleagues and also having to work somewhat harder.
The only entity to benefit is the government, who now have more (tax) money to hand out in the way of 'entitlements'---as a way of buying votes from the have-nots.
I don't care what label you put on things---this scenario is reality. It doesn't take any academic exploration. It's simply reality.
On the other hand, if the government gets off my back and allows me to plow my profits into my company, I may well be able to put money into upgrades so that I can create more widgets. This'll mean that I have to buy more machines and tooling, and hire more people to do the work.
This also is reality.
Because this is reality, the only way you can possibly nay-say it is to choose a period in time when there hasn't been tome for this reality to work.
KS
OK - Real Gross Domestic Product - right?
Real Gross Domestic Product
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/nipa/T1t1t6l1q
Reagan - 30% increase (Tax cuts for rich and corporations)
1981-01-01 5307.5
1989-01-01 6918.1
Clinton - 32% increase (Tax increases for rich and corporations)
1993-01-01 7459.7
2001-01-01 9875.6
Bush II - 19% increase (Tax cuts for rich and corporations)
2001-01 9875.6
2008 02 11727.4
(And this year looks pretty dismal for any significant increase in GDP)
"Gross receipts" should be more - we should have more people working because the population keeps growing, as well as you need to factor in inflation... but if you look at percentages - a much better baramoter...
Reagan years - 19% increase in Tax Revenues when adjusted for inflation and population growth.
Clinton years - 41% increase in Tax Revenues when adjusted for inflation and population growth.
W. Bush years - 18% increase in Tax Revenues when adjusted for inflation and population growth (projected at the end of 2007 - that rate will be less due to the large increases in unemployment rate this year).
So, of course Bush's numbers should look great - we have more people feeding into the bucket, at an inflationary rate. See above...
You do know that Atlas Shrugged is 'fiction' don't you Foss? We don't live in Ayn Rand's version of utopian capitalist thought vs fictional socialist bad guys.
I didn't 'cherry pick' there - I took 3 sources to back the claim that Clinton's tax increases would hurt the economy, specifically so I wouldn't be cherry picking.
So - the numbers regarding per capita revenue from personal income taxes comes from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...
www.gao.gov/cghome/d08490cg.pdf (a great presentation with lots of charts and graphs that the government did that looks at all sorts of financial and tax data.)
For the employment gains numbers I used this...
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/24/us-employment-growth-during-different-presidencies/
Didn't Clinton do just that? And who did he have to deal with... oh yeah - H Bush.
How about jobs created by private sector - rather than overall jobs (which includes the growth in government jobs - which I think we both believe should be thrown out to compare - right?)
Reagan - 16 million
Former President George H.W. Bush -- who served as Reagan's vice president before being elected president -- said at the dedication of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on November 4, 1991, that Reagan "helped the private sector create more than 16 million jobs."
Clinton - 20.6 private sector jobs (more private sector jobs than all of Reagan's jobs, Clinton in total created 22.5 million jobs including government jobs)
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Jobs.htm
Cammerfe, I don't know your whole situation. I work for a small company, and I freelance quite a bit. Things haven't been great for the small company - they are an automotive aftermarket manufacturer. Freelance however has never been better... Mostly because people are laying off their big agencies and looking for something cheaper.
Cheap and easy - my middle names...
I know it sounds like if we raise taxes on the rich and corporations it will be a bad thing, but recent history doesn't line up with that. I don't understand it, but I do know if I don't have money, I won't buy your widgets. If I do have money, i will buy your widgets, and your company will grow.
So, I don't know if you make more than $250,000 net profit in your small company, and if you claim it on a 1040 - schedule C - if you do, yes, you will be effected, from the numbers I have seen if you fall into that group, about another $2,500 in taxes. Will that cause you to lay off a worker - if your personal gain from your business is $2,500 less?
But, without looking at those middle class tax cuts.... (all the numbers are rounded so I can do them
) And I know this is really simple - it was explained to me this way... I am sure you know a whole lot more about this than I do, but this made sense to me.People buy 10 widgets for a total of $100 - your net profit is 20% - you have made $20 - your taxes are 30% so you end up making $14, the government has taken $6
People buy 20 widgets for a total of $200 - your net profit is 25% (economy of scale) - you have made $50 - your taxes are 40% so you end up making $30, the government has taken $20
So not only do you make more over all, you make more per unit.
And the government is taking in more money - paying down the deficit so we are paying less interest, allowing the government to use the money it collects to be used for 'maybe' something more useful, or goodness forbid, lower taxes.
Like I said, I really don't know economics that much, except my personal experiences. Clinton years - good. Bush years - not as good.
And shag - I always like the Heritage Foundation's website - anything that has on the front page a homage to Reagan is just swell -
The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.
The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.
Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
I actually like the Tax Policy Center http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) is a non-partisan joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Based in Washington D.C., TPC aims to provide independent analyses of current and longer-term tax issues and to communicate its analyses to the public and to policymakers in a timely and accessible manner. The Center combines top national experts in tax, expenditure, budget policy, and microsimulation modeling to concentrate on four overarching areas of tax policy that are critical to future debate: fair, simple and efficient taxation, social policy in the tax code, long-term implications of tax and budget choices, and state tax issues.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, like Barack Obama's OWN WEBSITE shouldn't be considered propaganda.
I just looked up "irony" in the dictionary, and your picture was inset.
Oh, and Fox, your "non-partisan" Tax Policy Center is liberal leaning, and run by former Clinton-ites, including (until recently) Jason Furman. Urban Institute and Brookings Institution? Give me a break.
The organization's president, Strobe Talbott was United States Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton.
Furthermore, Brookings claims to have contributed to the creation of the CBO.
Even the New York Times has called Brookings "liberal."
Revisionist history much?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh yeah? So, assuming your business makes any money at all, what do you do if your corporate taxes go up? Shut down the business, or raise prices? Hire more or fewer employees? Expand, or contract? Do you even have any employees, or are you selling insurance or mowing lawns? Is your "business" merely a tax deduction, or does it actually apply to the subject of this thread?
Please explain how this works. Enquiring minds want to know.