The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Butterfly

hahaha. Here lies the ignorance of the author. Don't need to read the rest, the guy is a fool. 20% ? LOL, is he drinking Chang ?

Wallalai

You SK just suck with all your posts about USA. It's very boring.

Storekeeper

Don't open my threads then tea bag lips.

man with no head

I don't know where these expanding businesses are but I haven't met one business owner yet that hired more people due to taxes being lowered. It just meant more money in the owner's pocket.

In contrast, the massive tax hike in 1993 should have killed the economy but it boomed for many years. Raising or lowering taxes just doesn't have an immediate effect on business expansion. To claim that the economy has expanded by 20% in less than three years without a single fact, quote, or source is beyond comprehension.

Wallalai

What's your problem SK ? Can't I post on your threads ?

Do you want to muzzle me ? 55555 you small minded moron.

stroller

...or start a new 'interesting' topic which doesn't focus on the US, Wallalai.

man with no head

There were plenty of boom years under Clinton. My point being that he didn't ride the coattails nor did his tax policies suddenly create millions of jobs. It was the internet that caused that.

Clinton didn't create any jobs, neither has Bush. It's the consumer. With the explosion of the internet in the mid-1990s any monkey in the oval office would have had an easy time. And, with the economic slow down that followed the WTC bombing of course it's only natural that things would start to recover.

One does want to know how increasing oil prices are going to start hurting this faux expansion. When I think about my 'lower' taxes and the higher prices of many things since Bush took office it looks like I'm losing more than I'm gaining right now. Price of gasoline tripled since Bush took office. Raw materials, up. Copper, up. Natural gas, up.

Storekeeper

This whining anti-capitalist, anti-productivity, socialist, anti-corporation, sniveling is just getting out of control. Don't you people WORK?

Who pays your salaries? Who makes it possible for you to sit around your expensive computers and have the time to bother us with your illogical, ill-reasoned, rantings? (For that matter, who MAKES those computers? The software? The house you sit in? The desk? The chair?) How much money have you ever been paid by a poor person? How many jobs have you ever had, or your friends ever had, that did not come from a corporate entity? You pick up on some catch-phrase, like "corporation", and you put Pavlov's dogs to shame.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This country was a better place when people looked at those who had more than they did and saw this as proof that tney, too, could achieve and prosper. It is a much poorer place now that so many look at those who have more than they have and merely want to drag these achievers down to their level.

Yes, we know that what is good for America is bad for you neorads. Catching terrorists is bad for you. A booming economy is bad for you. Happy people are bad for you. Success in Iraq is bad for you. Arresting and killing mass murderers is bad for you. Freeing millions is bad for you.

When I look at all the things that make you so miserable, it givees me a better idea of what the country would be like if you pinko commie liberals were running it. And that is not pretty at all.

__________________
"England forever; the USA one day longer"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Butterfly

Quite ironic what you are saying for someone who is on military "welfare"

Storekeeper

You just can't stand that I acknowledge my salary being paid by the tax payer then ?

man with no head

Don't lump me into that category. I campaigned twice for Reagan, once for Bush Sr. (too young to vote for them) and voted for Bush, Jr. The only regret is that Bush, Jr. isn't the intellectual that his father is. I'm so conservative that I consistently score almost 90% on any political test that measures political opinions. But I'm not so blindly patriotic that I immediately accept and fail to question things.

The main difference between 'corporation' and 'small business' is that the corporation pays their CEOs hundreds of times the salary of the average employee and to the corporation the shareholder is more important than the workers. With a small business many times the owner makes no profit just so he can keep workers on the payroll. The sacrifices of small business owners in times of slowdown is immense compared to those at the head of a large corporation. I know, I'm a small business owner and for the past two years I have lived with minimal profit just to keep from letting people go because I consider them to be like family. How many CEOs of large corporations have that kind of ethic system? Are our prices really lower because Wal-Mart pays the least amount possible, buys things made in China, and marks them up 1000%?

Whenever you look at the strenght of the economy you must look at the debt. Are our debt levels going down or going up? Much of the past economic expansion has been financed by debt to keep consumer spending going (and this is reflected in the fact that America has the worst savings rate in the world). That's not strength, that's weakness.

Butterfly

no, just that your rant about capitalism and corporation doesn't match your lifestyle. The military is run like a socialist bitch.

stroller

You've got a nerve, mate.
Who's paying your salary while you're posting on this forum. The tax money of those you accuse of sitting around their computers, by any chance?

Butterfly

Amen to that, I couldn't agree more. Finally a real conservative, not a pose like the other facist wanabee we have here.

However, I don't agree with your Clinton comments. I think that even a sad monkey like GW Bush would have fucked up the dotcom boom. Because everything he touches turn to shit. You have been a fool to vote for him. How do you feel now that you did ? cheated ? betrayed ? fooled ?

Storekeeper

As usual ... a day late and a dollar short ...keep up with the plot strollskie.

Storekeeper

NY Times Discovers Supply-Side Economics

Conservatives have touted the growth-stimulating benefits of marginal tax rate cuts (as opposed to ineffective "targeted" credits and refunds) for decades. Every 20 years, U.S. presidents have expounded on those benefits and enacted tax policies that have resulted in bountiful economic growth, fromJohn F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.

Well, lo and behold, the newspaper that bills itself as the finest in the nation belatedly, and surely grudgingly, has happened upon this economic truism.

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves that their tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues.
"The tax relief we delivered has helped unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and kept our economy the envy of the world," President Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

I wonder why it took their reporters so long to discover this? And the Times even reported, probably accidentally, how the "rich" shoulder most of the tax burden.

contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year.

Butterfly

so, SK, are you making more than 300k a year as a sailor ? why are so concerned about the rich paying taxes ? another irony in your lifestyle ?

Milkman

No offense, SK

But the military creates nothing; it only spends.

A military person is a governmental bureaucratic that wears a uniform instead of a suit.

Most need to be RIFFED, or Early Outed.

Storekeeper