Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
PREVIOUS MESSAGE(S)
'I signed a rent contract for a house yesterday.' posted by Selma - 22/05/2008, 05:45:11
'Kansrijkhuren? (N/T)' posted by Leander - 24/05/2008, 20:18:35
'Nah, via de gemeente op basis van de leegstandswet. NT' posted by Selma - 24/05/2008, 22:16:05

CURRENT MESSAGE

Only 18 minutes lon
Only 18 minutes long, it will go down in hisroty as one of the most powerful inaugural addresses ever. LMAO The cult of personality you guys have built around this idiot is amazing. It's getting eerily similar to the one built around some german guy back in the 1930s. Odd did Mr.Defender of Freedom ever talk about this during his campaign:Middle Class Beware: Tax Hikes Are ComingRemember all those mainstream news reports before the election about how President Obama?s expansive spending plans would require massive tax hikes on everyone, not just millionaires and billionaires?Neither do we. But somehow after the election, reporters are finally admitting that Obama?s budget numbers simply don?t add up and that new taxes on the middle class ? including a European style value added tax?are ?inevitable.? New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter, for example, wrote this week that the $620 billion in tax hikes on the rich that Obama secured as part of the fiscal-cliff deal are ?hardly enough to stabilize the nation?s debt in the next 10 years, let alone deal with the long-term budget deficit.? Fortune senior editor-at-large Shawn Tully wrote last week how ?steep deficits and mountainous debt will rise even after the new revenue is counted.? An article on CNBC?s website in early January noted that the fiscal-cliff deal ?merely masks the bleak long-term outlook for the country.? These stories go on to say that there?s no way Obama can finance his ambitious plans without raising taxe son everyone. The Financial Times ran a piece shortly after Obama signed the fiscal-cliff deal noting ?that maintaining a basic welfare state. . . implies higher taxes for the middle class as well as for the rich.?Targeting The MiddleCNN reported that while ?President Obama wants to balance spending cuts with tax increases. . . experts say he can?t do that without hitting the middle class.? That story quotes Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert Bixby saying that ?it?s hard to make the numbers work? if you exempt ?the middle class from any pain.? Hmm. As we recall, Obama endlessly promised the country that he could spend ? sorry, ?invest? ?more on roads and education while cutting the deficit simply by trimming some fat out of government programs and asking ?millionaires and billionaires to pay just a little bit more.? No one in the mainstream press seriously challenged Obama on this at the time, even though it was painfully obvious to anyone who looked at the budget forecasts that Obama was peddling fiscal snake oil.No Spending CutsObama?s own budget showed that his plan trimmed 10-year deficits by just $2trillion. And a Congressional Budget Office review of that plan showed deficits shooting back up after 2018. So now that Obama is safely back in the White House, it?s apparently OK for reporters to be honest with the public and talk up the ?inevitability? of new taxes on the middle class. And just how big a bite will the middle class have to face? ?To avoid a crisis,? Fortune?s Tully says, ?taxes would need to start rising sharply in the middle part of this decade.? The Time?s Porter says that without significant spending cuts, a middle class family making $50,000 would have to face a top rate of 23% and fork over $2,000 more in taxes. Alternatively, he says, the country could adopt a national ?value added? sales tax, in addition to the existing income tax, with the rate set at an eye-popping 16.7%. And all this assumes Obama-Care?s spending forecasts are accurate, fantasy that even Obama-Care fans don?t truly believe. A Government Accountability Office report found that if Obama Care costs run higher than predicted, keeping the debt as a share of GDP steady would require an across-the-board tax hike of 46%. Sound like an appealing option to you? Of course, we can avoid these ?inevitable? tax hikes altogether if Washington would just exercise some spending restraint. But that?s something reporters will never want to admit.





(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Thabo

MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 22:45:19

AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
62.210.78.179




REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE

- no replies yet -



REPLY FORM

name:
email:
title:
message:
Please type the text of the image below into the text box here to confirm that you are human, before posting a comment:

  sign post using your signature    |      no text
    
Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
















message was viewed 168 time(s).