Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Diamante
joyafina88
Mensajes: 40,907
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007

los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

                                             
                                                           LLOREN LIBERALES DEMOCRATAS
Diamante
joyafina88
Mensajes: 40,907
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

/////********//////******="width: 500px; overflow: hidden; max-height: 400px;">

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

MUCHAS GRACIAS JOYAFINA

DQBAN22

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

OBAMA'S TAX CUT FRAUD

 

 

By Tait Trussell On July 20, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

 

History never fails to repeat itself, especially when scheming leftists get an upper hand.

We’re in a money panic today. So, President Obama advances what he pictures as a fair deal to chip away at our mountain of debt: We cut some spending, but we raise taxes as part of the deal. It’s only fair. Or so it seems to those with no memory.

   Back in 1990, Washington also was in a money panic. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade, politicians fretted. As is happening today, back then the mainstream media were calling for tax hikes as part of any financial agreement, as they are today on reducing the $14.3 trillion debt or on raising the debt limit.

    At that time (1990), President George H. W. Bush was promised by the Democrats $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

   Senior Bush had promised his party: “Read my lips. No new taxes.” But Bush caved. The financial outlook seemed to justify it. And he mistakenly thought his opponents could be trusted on their side of the agreement.

    You remember what happened: Not only did the $274 billion promised spending cuts never materialize, but also all the $137 billion in tax hikes slid through the Congress. The top marginal rate went from 28 percent to 31 percent.

Baseline spending was $22 billion higher than what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected it would be before the fraudulent deal was struck. This led ever so easily to another tax increase in 1993 when Bill Clinton came to Office—up to 39.6 percent.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

PART 2

Even Ronald Reagan got taken for a ride. A Politico sifting of Reagan documents found the grand old man signed deficit-reduction in the 1980s that melded annual tax hikes with spending cuts, stunningly similar to what trickster Obama is now asking of Congress.

    The most notorious was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (FEFRA). It was a course change that followed Reagan’s signature income tax cuts in 1981. But in the six years afterward, four more deficit reductions tax acts were passed.Memory lapses in Washington seem as ubiquitous as dementia in a nursing home.

 



    When Obama tried to make his case for including revenue raising in a bipartisan debt-cutting plan, he advised GOP lawmakers to talk to their constituents to ask them if they were “willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate jet owners can get a tax break?” Obama had supported just such tax breaks as part of his 2009 fiscal stimulus package that would make buying such aircraft cheaper for companies.

     Mysteriously, many seem to have amnesia about the risks in trying to tax the rich. Jimmy Carter and his colleagues enacted a stiff tax on the buying of yachts. Most of the rich therefore managed to do with last year’s yacht or they went abroad and bought a yacht where there was no high tax. The only people hurt were middle class Americans who build yachts in the U.S. Obama faces the same problem with corporate jets.

    Taxing the rich has become such a sacred mantra with the Left that there is as much chance of their giving up that worn-out war-cry as there is going out to dinner without their pants on. The fact that there are more left-wing millionaires in Congress than there are Republican millionaires is a fact lost to the media and to most Americans.

    Even though the richest 5 percent of Americans pays 60 percent of the federal income taxes and the bottom 50 percent of payers send Uncle Sam less than 3 percent of all income taxes, Obama keeps harping on the mythical complaint that the rich should pay “their fair share.”

    Our tax code could be less distorted than it is, but it can’t squeeze a lot more money out of the economy. Taking more than people are willing to give entails more force than our government can get away with, and is, in the end, self-defeating.



  

Bronze
nj2mael
Mensajes: 4,947
Registrado: ‎03-11-2009

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

LLOREN LIBERALES

 

OBAMA IS OUT

IN 2012!!!!!!

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

[ Editado ]

OBAMA'S Budget Lies and Distortions
Townhall.com ^ | July 11, 2011 | Bruce Bialosky

 



   It’s amazing how often an absurd idea becomes an article of faith among Democrats, who then – with the help of their puppets in the media – repeat it over and over again. Not too long ago, seemingly intelligent adults believed that playing dodge ball at elementary school was the causing undo harm to the psyche of American youth. Today’s nightmare – and if you believe our President, the reason for the budget imbalance – is corporate jets. Obama has become so fixated on the subject that he mentioned it six times – yes, six times! – in one press conference.

   The President seems to have a short memory. In 1991, George H.W. Bush mistakenly agreed to a 10% luxury tax on autos, furs, boats, and jewelry. The tax brought in almost no revenue while destroying thousands of good manufacturing jobs, including 480 well-paid positions at the Beech Aircraft Company. The tax, which some propeller-head economists projected would collect $6 million every year, actually brought in the princely sum of $53,000. Fortunately, a wiser Congress repealed the tax shortly thereafter.

    President Obama and his over-educated cronies think that potential jet buyers will behave in the same manner after the depreciation schedule for these non-commercial jets is revised. That is never true. This change will bring in nowhere near the $3 billion over ten years that its proponents claim. The supporters of this ludicrous proposal never once considered the revenue lost as a result of decreased economic activity, the (predictable) reduction in manufacturing and service jobs in the airline industry, and higher costs for unemployed workers.

    Then there’s the budgetary practice of projecting revenues for ten years, which leads many people to speculate whether they have Sister Anasztazia and her Ouija Board locked in a basement somewhere. These people really think we should fall for this fantasy – as if anyone knows what economic conditions will be like ten years from now. After all, Congress has this bad habit of changing tax laws and budget priorities every year, so what good are these ten- year projections anyway? The federal government rarely even get one-year budgets accurate! This could be vastly improved if the government adopted zero-based budgeting, in which every agency and department starts from zero each year. Right now, it’s “We spent $10 billion last year, so give us $11 billion this year. Don’t worry, we’ll spend it responsibly.”

   There’s been some talk of changing to two-year budget cycles. Democrats in the Senate, led by the always dependable Harry Reid, clearly endorse this idea, seeing as they haven’t even submitted a budget for over two years. They probably really like the CBO’s (Congressional Budget Office) projections, which go out 35 years. Hopefully, we’ll be retired by then, even though we’ll all be paying for these ridiculous deficits for the rest of our lives. Maybe even longer than that – this tends to dampen one’s desire for reincarnation.

   But I digress. Our President still hasn’t identified any specific cuts in expenditures, claiming only that we need increased revenues as part of a balanced approach to a budget resolution. He has perfected the art of keeping a sober face while delivering the same tired liberal nonsense about all the imminent anguish for babies, puppies, college students, grandmas, disabled children, aardvarks and a myriad of other helpless creatures if “The Rich,” Hedge Fund operators, corporate jet flyers, and Oil Barons don’t pony up more money. 

   

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

PART 2

   Obama’s goal is not to increase economic growth, like the Bush Administration did from 2003-2006, when federal revenues shot up $750 billion even while tax rates were lowered.

 

Karl Marx: “There is only one way to kill capitalism

—by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.

 



   What Obama wants is a permanent expansion of government. With the help of Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he has overseen an explosion in federal spending. And now what he craves are new taxes to pay for everything, all the while warning of impending doom if any government program – no matter how pointless or inconsequential – is reduced or, God forbid, eliminated. Only because the public is so agitated about the tremendous deficits is Obama even suggesting $3 expenditure reductions for every $1 of additional revenue.

    Let’s hypothetically say that Republicans agree to Obama’s 3-to-1 ratio (unlikely as that may be), and that they decide to cut the $1.5 trillion deficit by $600 billion next year. Under this proposal, the federal government would take $150 billion in additional taxes out of the private sector (accompanied by $450 billion in spending cuts) to reduce the deficit by $600 billion.

    Now seriously, do any of you really believe that $150 billion would be better spent by the federal government than by individual Americans? Is there anyone – other than perhaps Paul Krugman – who believes that having Obama and his cronies squander this money would be better for the economy than having it spent or invested by private citizens? But more to the point, does anybody still believe that if the government imposes new taxes that will supposedly bring in $150 billion, people will not alter their behavior in response, resulting in revenue far short of what was projected?

    In addition let us focus on the new in vogue term – tax expenditure. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TAX EXPENDITURE. The person who came up with this odious term should be shackled in the town square and flogged for their manipulation of the English language and the development of this pathetic term. In its essence it means that all monies belong to the government and any means by which it ends up in your hands is a gift from the anointed.

    Then there’s the issue of borrowed money. A good chunk of our debt is owned by the Chinese, but actually more is owned by U.S. citizens. When so much debt is issued to cover federal deficits, capital markets that finance private industry become squeezed, and businesses can no longer grow (nor hire new employees). Liberals just don’t understand that using debt to finance their cherished programs cripples growth in the private sector, and ultimately reduces the tax revenue needed to pay for these programs.

   For the first time in many, many years, we have elected public officials standing up at the federal and state level and telling us the truth: we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

   People like Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and even the mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, have put their necks out and told people that we cannot continue this pattern of debt and overspending. Many other Americans are emboldened by the courage and honesty of these men. Every responsible citizen hopes that their message seeps its way into our national principles before it’s too late.

    Regrettably, there are still people like President Obama, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer who prefer to use fear to maintain the status quo. Now is the time for the grown-ups to stand tall and firm, and not be swayed by demagoguery. Victory is in sight for the American people – let us march forward together and slay the deficit dragon.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

[ Editado ]

DEMO Poll: Weakened Obama would lose

Inside Politics
 

A Democratic polling firm said President Obama's already weak   job-approval numbers are "worse than they appear" and he likely would   lose the election if it were held today.

    For the first time in a year, Mr. Obama does not lead former   Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Public Policy Polling's monthly   national poll on the 2012 presidential race. They are tied at 45   percent, and Mr. Obama is losing among independent voters by a margin of 49   percent to 44 percent.

   Worse for Mr. Obama, PPP said, the "vast majority" of undecideds   disapprove of the president's performance. The survey of registered   voters was conducted July 15-17.

"There's a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to   stand for re-election today," said Dean Debnam, president of PPP. "This   is his worst poll standing in a long time, and he really needs the   economy to start turning around."

   In an interview this week with a Kansas City, Mo., TV station,   Mr. Obama said the election will be more about his record than the   platform of the eventual Republican nominee.

  "Americans understand that we didn't get into this problem   overnight," Mr. Obama told KMBC-TV, one of three interviews he gave to   regional TV outlets at the White House on Wednesday.  "If next November   they feel like I've ... been working as hard as I can and have been   getting some things done to move us in the right direction, then I'll   win. If they don't, then I'll lose."

 

SOLAVAYA OBAMA!!!!!

QUINCE SEMANAS CONSECUTIVAS AUMENTANDO EL DESEMPLEO!!! DESEMPLEO REAL CON OBAMA ES 17.9% EN CAMINO DEL 20%... BAJO BUSH LLEGO A BAJAR HASTA EL 4.7%..DEFICIT ANUAL DEL PRESUPUESTO, BUSH $450 BILLONES... OBAMA, $1.8 TRILLONES,  DEUDA DE LA NACION, BAJO BUSH $10 TRILLONES... GRACIAS A OBAMA, $14  TRATANDO DE ELEVARLA A $18 TRILLONES!!!!

 

Miss Me Yet!

You know DUh-bama DUmocrats miss Bush...they cannot blame their mistakes on him any more but are forced more often to look into the mirror for blame.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: los topics de sirjohn siguen siendo los mas hot hot hot

Could You Survive Another Great Depression?

By Paul  Kengor 7/21/2011

 

       I just read two very interesting articles on the U.S. economy, written from historical perspectives. They compelled me to share my own historical perspective. And what I want to say is more about our changing culture than our economy.

One of the articles, by Julie Crawshaw of MoneyNews.com, notes that the "Misery Index"—the combined unemployment and inflation rates—made infamous under President Jimmy Carter, has hit a 28-year high. It's also 62 percent higher than when President Obama took office.

But that's nothing compared to Mort Zuckerman's article in U.S. News & World Report. Zuckerman measures the current situation against the Great Depression. He writes:

jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off.... We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.

Zuckerman is a perceptive writer who looks at economies from a historical perspective. In my comparative politics course at Grove City College, I use his article on the Russian collapse in the 1990s, which Zuckerman showed was worse than our Great Depression.

I can't say we're teetering on that precipice, but Zuckerman's article got me thinking: Imagine if America today experienced an economic catastrophe similar to the 1930s. How would you survive?

I remember asking that question to my grandparents, Joseph and Philomena. How did they survive the Great Depression?

My grandmother, never at a loss for words, direly described how her family avoided starving. Compensation came via barter. Her father, an Italian immigrant, baked bread and cured meats in an oven in the tiny backyard, among other trades he learned in the old country. My grandmother cleaned the house and babysat and bathed the children of a family who owned a grocery store. They paid her with store products. Her family struggled through by creatively employing everyone’s unique skills.

What about my grandfather? When I asked that question as he sat silently, my grandmother raised her loud Italian voice and snapped: "Ah, he didn't suffer! Don’t even ask him!"