PDA

View Full Version : TOP 80 CEO's DEMAND DEFICIT ACTION! RAISE TAXES!



Gayle in MD
10-25-2012, 06:43 AM
Finally the CEO's in this country, who for the most part have never made any big effort to back Mitsey, are demanding that taxes be raised in order to get real about taking care of our deficit!

Finally, we will see an end to, and exposure of, the ridiculous refusals and oath taking by the Repiglican Party, refusing to raise taxes, as the top CEO's in this country demand that they raise taxes and get real on addressing our deficits!

There is nothing that could be more advantageous for Democrats right now, than to see the top eighty CEO's in this country GATHERED TOGETHER IN AN OP ED, shouting out before the election, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL</span>DEMANDING that these failed Repiglican NO TAXES RAISED, irresponsible policies end, and end right now!


BRAVO

llotter
10-25-2012, 06:47 AM
It may will be the case that most of the CEO's that are demanding higher taxes head companies that are dependent on continued taxpayer support for their respective companies. Heck, half the population have become wards of the state so it is likely a large number of corporations are in the same boat.

LWW
10-25-2012, 07:35 AM
Oddly enough ... the OP failed to show any evidence?

Gayle in MD
10-25-2012, 07:35 AM
As usual, you are wrong. These are EIGHTY of the top corporations in this country basically telling Repiglicans to cut with the pledge bull**** and get real!

Romney's "Plan" has been taken apart by every major economist in this country.

These people do not want this country to go off the deficit cliff, and they have decided they would rather pay a few more bucks in taxes, than to let the Tea Party TWITS, and Grover A-hole Norquist push it off with their dumb "Pledge" ideology!


This is great for President Obama, because they all know that there will be no second Obama term to obstruct, and they also have seen this president willing to compromise for the big plan, A BALANCED PLAN, which the Repiglicans refused to allow.

This is a smack right in the face of the Repiglican obstructionism, and absurd economic policies.

The country knows who has blocked raising taxes, along with cutting spending, even if RWers living in a bubble, don't know...

BRAVO!

llotter
10-25-2012, 07:47 AM
I have little doubt that taxes will be going up next year regardless of who is elected because nobody has the the guts to make the cuts needed to avoid it. The Catch-22 is that the increased tax burden will stifle economic growth and increase dependency. You have to wonder when the 'working class' taxpayers are going to take to the streets and start another revolution.

eg8r
10-25-2012, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may will be the case that most of the CEO's that are demanding higher taxes head companies that are dependent on continued taxpayer support for their respective companies. </div></div>If true, this is the type of reality dems would never care to divulge.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-25-2012, 07:56 AM
If the tax cuts had worked, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Most intelligent people who do not live in the RW bubble, have observed that.

Additionally, the president has always been for a balanced approach, which cuts spending, which he has already done, and done more of it than any president in recent history, other than Clinton, possibly, and taxes will not go up for the Middle class, just those who make above a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Hence, the Middle Class, which has to spend their money, will provide more consumers, which in turn increases output, and higher production, and more revenue, instead of just sitting in some offshhore account, or other investment, which has nothing at all to do with job creation.

I suspect that when the Bushwhacked Tax Cuts expire, taxes will up for those who can most afford to pay more, as well they should, given the top one percent are NOT job creators, as the Repiglican Mythology insists.

We are going to do just fine, because the president who believes in Americans, will be running the show! Additionally, as every economist of note has stated, over and over, we cannot solve our economic problems, with such irrationally inequality in our tax structure, and we surely cannot "Cut" only, NOR "Spend" ONLY if we expect to address the deficits. We have to do both, which this president was willing to do all along, and which the twit Tea Party, and the Weeper of the House, refused to do.

Good Bye Grover!

Gayle in MD
10-25-2012, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may will be the case that most of the CEO's that are demanding higher taxes head companies that are dependent on continued taxpayer support for their respective companies. Heck, half the population have become wards of the state so it is likely a large number of corporations are in the same boat. </div></div>

Half the population are not wards of the state.

The RW BS you write here is astounding.

Austerity isn't going to cut it. That is very clear, after what happened in Europe.

WE need to continue to cut spending, as they president has been doing all along, AND increase revenues by raising taxes.

It is only sensible to raise taxes on those who can well afford it, since increasing them on the poor, or the Middle Class, has a double whammy impact on the country, economically, more would need help, and fewer could spend, as well.

The very wealthy are not the majority of consumers, they already have evverything.

You on the right are always praising the CEO's, until they prove your ignorance for you, and that is precisely what this article is saying. Repiglican Policies won't work.

G.

LWW
10-25-2012, 12:03 PM
Oddly enough ... the OP still has presented no link?

LWW
10-26-2012, 08:19 AM
Well ... I read the article the OP mentioned, and it is quite obvious why no link was provided.

The WSJ endorsed Simpson-Bowles.

Simpson-Bowles called for increased revenue and not tax rate increases.

Simpson-Bowles called for rate reductions and loophole closings.

Simpson-Bowles was immediately rejected by Obama.

Simpson-Bowles is remarkably close to R-money's plan.

We now have the cabal de facto endorsing R-money's plan while at the same time denouncing it.

Doublethink is truly an amazing thing to observe.

Stretch
10-27-2012, 12:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... I read the article the OP mentioned, and it is quite obvious why no link was provided.

The WSJ endorsed Simpson-Bowles.

Simpson-Bowles called for increased revenue and not tax rate increases.

Simpson-Bowles called for rate reductions and loophole closings.

Simpson-Bowles was immediately rejected by Obama.

Simpson-Bowles is remarkably close to R-money's plan.

We now have the cabal de facto endorsing R-money's plan while at the same time denouncing it.

Doublethink is truly an amazing thing to observe. </div></div>

Only when observed by you apparently. which is as much to say, nobody. St.

Gayle in MD
10-27-2012, 05:32 AM
Simpson Bowls called for a balanced approach, cut spending and increase revenue by raising taxes.
Repiglicans blocked recovery by refusing to go against their Grover "Pledge" and raise taxes, hence, they blocked the President's big plan for addressing the deficit.

But thenn, as they stated, they have had only two goals, one to destroy the PResident, two, to destroy constitutional rights, and practice incredible misogyny annd oppression against the women in America.

They only thing they accomplished was holding back the recovery as much as they could by firing Americans, and obstructing recovery from the Bush Failed policies, and enlightening American women to the realities of the Repiglican Taliban Party.


Every single Repiglican candidate stood on the stage and RAISED THEIR HANDS refusing to raise ANY taxes for any reason, what-so-ever, even at the rate of ten to one, cuts to tax hikes, dollar for dollar.

Amazing, isn't it? Watching the RW NUTJOBS spread their unconscionable BS?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


G.

LWW
10-27-2012, 08:38 AM
Back where the air is thick:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Zero Plan in the Bowles-Simpson “Chairmen's Mark” would:

Eliminate all tax expenditures—for both income and payroll taxes—except for the child credit, the earned income tax credit, foreign tax credits, a few less common preferences (retain reduced preferences for mortgage interest, employer-sponsered health insurance and reitrement savings in the third variant listed above).

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT).</span>

Eliminate the phaseout of personal exemptions and the limitation of itemized deductions.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Replace the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with rates of 9, 15, and 24 percent (12, 20, and 27 percent in the third variant listed above).</span>

Tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.

Index tax parameters using the chained Consumer Price Index.

Increase the Social Security wage base by 2 percent per year more than the growth in the average wage (making the FICA cap $140,100 in 2015).

Phase in an increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline of 15 cents per gallon (13.5 cents per gallon on average in 2015).

Eliminate corporate tax expenditures and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>reduce the corporate tax rate to 26 percent </span>(27 percent in the third variant listed above).
</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>THE CABAL HAS JOINED THE OBAMA REGIME IN ENDORSING TAX CUTS AS THE BEST WAY TO RAISE REVENUE AND GENERATE ECONOMIC GROWTH! (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Bowles_Simpson_Brief.cfm)</span>

Think of the deficits and human suffering that could have been avoided had the Obama regime not blocked every effort to avoid it!

LWW
10-27-2012, 04:55 PM
Notice how the cabal was all mouthy about Simpson - Bowles ... until it was shown to them that they in fact knew nothing about it.

Solomon Grundy
10-27-2012, 05:33 PM
You poor mentally ill man. Your slide into madness and insignificance is at once both painful to see, and yet fascinating..like a wreck on the highway.

"No matter how he tried he could not break free
And the worms ate into his brain." Pink Floyd (Hey You)

LWW
10-28-2012, 05:49 AM
Still stealing my lines, and still incapable of original thought ... how unsurprising.

No matter how low the bar is set ... you always manage to walk beneath it.

This is the point where you embrace your master's lies, deny observable reality nd declare victory.

Stretch
10-28-2012, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Solomon Grundy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You poor mentally ill man. Your slide into madness and insignificance is at once both painful to see, and yet fascinating..like a wreck on the highway.

"No matter how he tried he could not break free
And the worms ate into his brain." Pink Floyd (Hey You)

</div></div>

Mentally ill? Of course! How could we have missed the obvious. lol St.

LWW
10-28-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Solomon Grundy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You poor mentally ill man. Your slide into madness and insignificance is at once both painful to see, and yet fascinating..like a wreck on the highway.

"No matter how he tried he could not break free
And the worms ate into his brain." Pink Floyd (Hey You)

</div></div>

Mentally ill? Of course! How could we have missed the obvious. lol St. </div></div>

How Orwellian was that?

In "1984" ... hondo you really should read it ... those who could think independent of the state were also deemed to be mentally ill, and all of the statebots would obediently nod their heads in collectivist unison.

Now ... toodle off to the morning "TWO MINUTES HATE" ... your playmates have saved you a seat, and we know you wouldn't want to miss seeing those guilty of "CRIMETHINK" that your beloved masters have apprehended.

What a waste of gray matter this cabal is ... but, a thugocracy can't exist without such obedient trolls.

eg8r
10-29-2012, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You poor mentally ill man. </div></div>So says the mentally handicapped little man who can't stay away after being kicked off.

eg8r

LWW
10-29-2012, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You poor mentally ill man. </div></div>So says the mentally handicapped little man who can't stay away after being kicked off.

eg8r </div></div>

Be nice to Cybil ... he's a fragile thing.

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 05:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well ... I read the article the OP mentioned, and it is quite obvious why no link was provided.

The WSJ endorsed Simpson-Bowles.

Simpson-Bowles called for increased revenue and not tax rate increases.

Simpson-Bowles called for rate reductions and loophole closings.

Simpson-Bowles was immediately rejected by Obama.

Simpson-Bowles is remarkably close to R-money's plan.

We now have the cabal de facto endorsing R-money's plan while at the same time denouncing it.

Doublethink is truly an amazing thing to observe. </div></div>

You excel in your own kind of doublethink.

This is NOTHING like Romney's plan, which he claims to be revenue NEUTRAL. NEUTRAL. As in, it will raise NO MORE MONEY, because the rate reduction will supposedly be just equaled by the closed loopholes.

On the contrary, the SB plan would raise revenues. No more corporate deductions, and a reduction in their stated, nominal rate, will mean they pay the nominal stated rate, period. Which will be a titanic tax increase on the corporations, raising their effective rate of something on the order of 9% (with as we know many very large corporations with billions in profit paying $0.00 in taxes) to the (allegedly) reduced 26%. Nearly tripling the rate they'd pay at.

Obama didn't torpedo the plan. Paul Ryan torpedoed the plan, with his personal opposition leading the other GOP members of the group. Why did he torpedo it? Over the issue that it would raise taxes in a large way. (Taking the preferred tax rate of 15% for cap gains and dividends and interest income up to whatever the regular earned income tax would be.) Large. Increases.

LWW
10-29-2012, 05:41 PM
Revenue neutral means that the same income will pay the same tax ... and revenue will be increased by increasing economic activity.

Why do I have to continually explain such simple things to you?

Soflasnapper
10-29-2012, 07:04 PM
That wasn't the meaning of revenue neutral as to the Bradley-Gephardt tax reform deal of '86, and it isn't the standard meaning of the phrase. In fact, even the largest alleged supply side effects are so minimal that you'd still need substantially revenue neutral math before any such expansion was factored in.

I would agree that Robme has been so entirely vague that HE may mean that (or a half dozen other things).

None of that is relevant to the SB plan, which, as I said, makes no pretense of revenue neutrality by its loophole closing or tax expenditure elimination, and in fact, is designed to provide a substantial tax hike on many, and increased tax revenues to the federal government, by doing so.

So, as to your main point, that SB is just like Robme's idea, and a tacit endorsement of it, that is false. As you've been dodging admitting.

LWW
10-30-2012, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That wasn't the meaning of revenue neutral as to the Bradley-Gephardt tax reform deal of '86, and it isn't the standard meaning of the phrase. In fact, even the largest alleged supply side effects are so minimal that you'd still need substantially revenue neutral math before any such expansion was factored in.

I would agree that Robme has been so entirely vague that HE may mean that (or a half dozen other things).

None of that is relevant to the SB plan, which, as I said, makes no pretense of revenue neutrality by its loophole closing or tax expenditure elimination, and in fact, is designed to provide a substantial tax hike on many, and increased tax revenues to the federal government, by doing so.
G
So, as to your main point, that SB is just like Robme's idea, and a tacit endorsement of it, that is false. As you've been dodging admitting. </div></div>

SB wants to cut the top rate from 36 to 27 ... Romney wants it cut to 28.8 ... both want loopholes closed.

Both claim to raise revenue by this process.

Deal with it.

Gayle in MD
10-30-2012, 08:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That wasn't the meaning of revenue neutral as to the Bradley-Gephardt tax reform deal of '86, and it isn't the standard meaning of the phrase. In fact, even the largest alleged supply side effects are so minimal that you'd still need substantially revenue neutral math before any such expansion was factored in.

I would agree that Robme has been so entirely vague that HE may mean that (or a half dozen other things).

None of that is relevant to the SB plan, which, as I said, makes no pretense of revenue neutrality by its loophole closing or tax expenditure elimination, and in fact, is designed to provide a substantial tax hike on many, and increased tax revenues to the federal government, by doing so.

So, as to your main point, that SB is just like Robme's idea, and a tacit endorsement of it, that is false. As you've been dodging admitting. </div></div>

Well stated.

Even Alan Greenspan said back some time ago that it would be very irresponsible NOT to raise taxes on the top one to two percent in the country.

G.

Calliopebrook
10-30-2012, 09:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may will be the case that most of the CEO's that are demanding higher taxes head companies that are dependent on continued taxpayer support for their respective companies. Heck, half the population have become wards of the state so it is likely a large number of corporations are in the same boat. </div></div>

Half the population are not wards of the state.

The RW BS you write here is astounding.

Austerity isn't going to cut it. That is very clear, after what happened in Europe.

WE need to continue to cut spending, as they president has been doing all along, AND increase revenues by raising taxes.

It is only sensible to raise taxes on those who can well afford it, since increasing them on the poor, or the Middle Class, has a double whammy impact on the country, economically, more would need help, and fewer could spend, as well.

The very wealthy are not the majority of consumers, they already have evverything.

You on the right are always praising the CEO's, until they prove your ignorance for you, and that is precisely what this article is saying. Repiglican Policies won't work.

G.

</div></div>
This is great for President Obama, because they all know that there will be no second Obama term to obstruct, and they also have seen this president willing to compromise for the big plan, A BALANCED PLAN, which the Repiglicans refused to allow.

LWW
10-31-2012, 01:46 AM
So how many cabalists have multiple SN's now?

Gayle in MD
10-31-2012, 08:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is great for President Obama, because they all know that there will be no second Obama term to obstruct, and they also have seen this president willing to compromise for the big plan, A BALANCED PLAN, which the Repiglicans refused to allow.
</div></div>

Precisely.

But, as we all know, the Republicans never had a plan to actually RUN a candidate.

TheRepublican entire plann was to obstruct the recovery, buy the election, and just to be sure, they planned to throw the election, since people don't like any of the Romney crime family.

Obstruct the Recovery to destroy Obama.

Pander to the thieving corporate welfare fasicsts and polluters in order to buy the election.

AND.....

Disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The disastrous results of George W. Bush live on through his Supreme Court Appointees, annd the Neocons behind Romney.

G.

LWW
10-31-2012, 11:43 AM
Cybil III ...