Stay away from ObamaCare

WEll, I guess if they have made great progress they can keep on going. If they have the money now, they don't need more.

News Buzzard wrote:Look around the country. They've made great progress on the interstates with the Stimulus package. You're just hoping to crash the economy as much as you can when the fund dries up. They're talking about 700 thousand jobs and hundreds of thousands more when all of that spending money dries up. That's your vision for the future of our country: Third World Status! That's a shame !

Sounds like doom and gloom...smells like something else.

Eisenhower paid all the construction costs for building the highway system with a 4% gas tax.

The Obama administration is only interested in dispensing monies to their political backers such as unions and "green" initiatives to garner votes.

We cannot trust Obama to spend the money responsibly.

It is quite likely he would reallocate the funds by EO to high speed rail or any number of his so called “worthy” investments. Much like the crisis at the boarder; If the House was dumb enough (and maybe they are) to give Obama the 4 billion he requested, you can bet the money will not go to solving the problem.

Again….”I have a pen and a phone.”

We will be lucky if Obama is only the worst since WWII. Given the current turmoil inside and outside of our country, I doubt we will be that fortunate.
It's all about special interests and wacky liberal ideas and of course, importing as many low skilled workers/voters as Obama can find to further deplete the power of working Americans.

It's beyond words for what is happening.

Eisenhower was president between 1953 and 1961, and a good income in the '50s was $5 thousand a year. You must be lost in the fifties if you think the cost of things haven't gone up. If the deadbeats in Congress don't act on the Highway Trust Fund we're talking about 100 thousand projects being stopped. I don't have to remind you that the bridge in Minnesota collapsed, all of the bridges in New York are structurally obsolete and the Leo Frigo Bridge in Wisconsin almost collapsed and caused Interstate Highway 41 to be closed for months.

All you want to see is a third world country and then blame Obama. That "I don't trust Obama" line is getting thin. Remember, all politics is local, so when people see their roads falling apart they're going to blame their local officials who aren't bringing home the bacon. People aren't going to buy that it's Obama's fault routine forever!

Ah the economics of a liberal.

While you are talking about the time value of money, percentages remain a constant. This is the same flawed reasoning behind your belief that giving 30 million people free health insurance will lower cost.

The Feds take in plenty of money to maintain the interstates and while you trust Obama your fellow Americans overwhelmingly do not.

I do agree whole-heartedly that all politics are local. Instead of sending our money to the Feds so they can send some of it back (with stipulations on how to spend it) it would be preferable to keep it here and use it to benefit NH.

Its odd how deeply concerned about the bridges in other states but have no concern about our southern border.

But let’s face it…the “We need to fix our bridges and roads” campaign of the week is to deflect from the real problems.

Our southern border is a tidal wave. The middle-east is on fire and it appears the Cold War has reignited. Just utter insanity by our government now.

Everything is RELATIVE, NB. The more one makes the more things cost. The more one makes, the more taxes we pay. Do you think we are paying less taxes now than were paid in the 50s? I bet RELATIVELY we are paying a LOT more in taxes than were paid in the 50s. Yet look at how they spend!!!

Outerlimits wrote:"...But let’s face it…the “We need to fix our bridges and roads” campaign of the week is to deflect from the real problems..."

We have more people driving the cars that Obama wanted. Doesn't that indicate a trend against the market solution, that would produce more maintenance money—not less?

Another question:

Doesn't this nation's road-working crews depend on Obama's Union worker support?

  


.

Of course, the unions are Obama's guys!

Yes, let's talk about the roads so we don't talk about the illegals or the IRS or Benghzi or or or ---

WHL wrote:Everything is RELATIVE, NB.  The more one makes the more things cost.  The more one makes, the more taxes we pay.  Do you think we are paying less taxes now than were paid in the 50s?  I bet RELATIVELY we are paying a LOT more in taxes than  were paid in the 50s.  Yet look at how they spend!!!

Not even close, WHL. The tax rates on incomes over $400 thousand in the '50s was 91%! Here is a list of successive tax rates during administrations since then. This Supply Side madness started with Ronald Reagan and our national debt has been going up ever since. That's the part you obviously don't get!

http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html;_ylt=A0LEV1PC5cdTYjYADAlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbzhmbDd1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ4M18x

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:Everything is RELATIVE, NB.  The more one makes the more things cost.  The more one makes, the more taxes we pay.  Do you think we are paying less taxes now than were paid in the 50s?  I bet RELATIVELY we are paying a LOT more in taxes than  were paid in the 50s.  Yet look at how they spend!!!

Not even close, WHL. The tax rates on incomes over $400 thousand in the '50s was 91%! Here is a list of successive tax rates during administrations since then. This Supply Side madness started with Ronald Reagan and our national debt has been going up ever since. That's the part you obviously don't get!

http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html;_ylt=A0LEV1PC5cdTYjYADAlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbzhmbDd1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ4M18x

 
 
We both know nobody paid that tax rate.  
 
The actual percent of GDP collected is quite constant over time no matter what the marginal rates were. The revenue from individual income taxes has remained about 8% of GDP since WWII.
 
You either don't get it or you are deliberately trying to deceive.  This is more Progressive flim-flam put out there to confuse people.  The government coffers are as full as ever in relation to GDP.  
 
And for the record…
 
Kennedy lowered them and UP WENT THE REVENUE. yes a Democrat.
 
Reagan also lowered them and UP WENT THE REVENUE, in fact, it went from $500 billion to $985 billion in 8 years.
 
Bush also lowered them  and   UP WENT THE REVENUE, like no other 4 year span in our history.

Yeah, that's a load of nonsense! Where did you get your info, FOX News ?  

Kansas is the perfect example of the disaster of Supply Side economics. A Republican governor may lose his job in a Red state over this. Remember when Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said they were going to cut everyone's taxes by 20% and keep it revenue neutral? It's not working in Kansas and thank God Obama won!!!

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2014/0716/Kansas-tax-cuts-caused-tax-revenues-to-fall-11-percent.-What-s-next

News Buzzard wrote:Yeah, that's a load of nonsense! Where did you get your info, FOX News ?  

Isn't FOX News the biggest US news outlet? That must count for something, when most of our REAL news is sourced from Britain.

  



.

Go ahead NB; show me where I am wrong.

The top effective tax rate somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of massive loopholes and 400K in the 50s is almost 4 million in today’s dollars. I remember when you could deduct ANY interest paid including credit cards.

Those 1950s tax rates actually generated less tax revenue (compared to GDP) than subsequent periods of lower rates. From 1950 to 1963, income tax revenue averaged 7.5 percent of GDP; that’s less than in the Reagan years when rates were being slashed. This suggests that rates are right around the Laffer Curve equilibrium point in the current economy.

Our problem is not revenue and the numbers prove it. Our problem is spending and every time a politician comes up with a new entitlement, we increase spending. The Democrats in power and Republicans to a slightly lesser extent spend way too much on things they shouldn’t be involved with and neglect those things they are supposed to do.

Obama succeeded at one thing; He has fundamentally changed this country. There is a substantial portion of this nation that believes it is somebody else’s responsibility to take care of them and we have a government that is more than willing to facilitate.

Sorry, OL, not buying a word of that nonsense, and once you start taking things away from poor folks in the South, even Tea Party faithful, you'll rapidly see the end of the Tea Part brand. It's fading already and you know it. It's ironic that the Red states in the South are the poorest in the country. The Koch brothers have those poor folks fired up with hatred for Obama, but it's no matter, the Democrats have an electoral lock on the White House and Hillary has a clear path !

Talk about wasteful spending; How about $6 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, and how about $1.5 trillion on the F-35? But then the Republicans won't give Obama the necessary money to attack this problem at the borders. Your priorities are all screwed up !

NB, not matter what you twist it to suit yourself. You are TRULY a liberal!

News Buzzard wrote:"...Talk about wasteful spending; How about $6 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, and how about $1.5 trillion on the F-35?

How much of taxpayers' money came back into America's salaries?

The US-manufactured F-35 can be purchased (overseas) with various fitments—depending on the needs of their defensive posture. Our own defense needs also change.

  

News Buzzard wrote:"...But then the Republicans won't give Obama the necessary money to attack this problem at the borders. Your priorities are all screwed up !

The "invaders" were tacitly invited-in by Obama. They're arriving by the trainload—and NOT because of dangers in their home-countries.

Where will Obama next "invest" taxpayers' monies?

 


.