The lotto balls are in. They'd get rid of the penny before they'll agree to pay a dime more in taxes.
They can't stand the math. They'll do anything to avoid a serious discussion and admit there is a reality.
They'd rather believe they are situated in a quantum reality realm in the universe, of mega-ultra liberalism,
in which they might account some piety points. They'll say they don't understand the Bush method
of taxation ('trust'). Rather they'll take every personal advantage; because
they don't need lotto balls......not when the money right in their hand. All that is required is to
forsake the community, the State, the Nation, and fake a blink for reality. They don't believe their appearance
is a wolf...in sheep's clothing. They'll point to vampire cults and subcultures, or a new Hitler-rising.
Is it really that hard to face reality and pay more taxes?
In February 2003, roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time,
signed a statement, The Economists' statement, opposing the Bush tax cuts. They urged the U.S. President George W. Bush
not to enact the 2003 tax cuts. It was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times. The Economic Policy Institute in
Washington D.C., a non-profit think tank, researches and analyzes data. The EPI coordinates the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN),
a nationwide network of state and regional multi-issue advocacy, policy, and research organizations that operate on a local level.
It was founded in 1986.
Those opposed, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan, wrote that the new plan would "create more employment,
economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans'. Now, it's 2012. Did they put the frosting on the cake with the tax brakes
they recieved, in their roles as the employer with fiduciary responsibilities to the national economy? It isn't possible that they are
unaware of the Bush method. Do they try to claim they didn't have profitable gains? Did they put workers into the social services system
to supplement income and food?
The term 'green card' and migrant workers shouldn't be a substitute for the topic of the Bush Method of taxation ('trust').
It ddoesn't take muscle to solve this. It's takes intelligence, knowledge, education and brains. As it currently stands at this
moment in time they are winning the argument because now the economy IS bad. But they lose the argument when it comes
to the proof in the pudding.....net profits in the millions anmd billions, AND what they actually chose to spend it on. It wasn't the Bush
method of fiduciary 'trust'. He didn't say 'no more taxes, it's time to get filthy rich'.
The CEA statement (February 2003) reads as follows;
Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising.
In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals,
and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.
The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan,
there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term.
The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that
it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits.
This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments
in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.
To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also
rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without
exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.