OUR PRESIDENT AND FOUR MORE YEARS ?? !!

[fredball]

OUR PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINSTRATION!
FOUR MORE YEARS ?? !!
THINK ABOUT IT !!

Subject: DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS

Send this to EVERYONE you know..... Also, check out the response on the Snopes website that is attached at the end of the article. Everyone needs to read this:


ON JANUARY 1 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?

1% tax on all bank transactions HR4646 Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE in case you think Obama's looking out for your best interest.

1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 This government just cannot think of enough ways to hurt the American people! I sure hope this dies!!!!!

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW! 1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE A SLEEP.

Checked this on snopes, it's true ! Check out HR 4646.

President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (T A X).Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc.

Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.

~If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

~If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank.

Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

~You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.. ~

If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.

Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.

Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from , you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board.

Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will.

And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal?

Go back and look at the transactions you made on one year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal?

SNOPES: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine democrats slipped it in ...see snopes

Read More

 

[Siglvr]

SNOPES: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine democrats slipped it in ...see snopes

Nobody will find fault with you if you read the material you are about to post first. I'd suggest you read the Snopes link that says the rest of your story is false, and then FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

Regards

 

[Mikej]

snopes.com: Debt Free America Act


REALLY.... One more time in case there's anyone else out there that doesn't get it.

snopes.com: Debt Free America Act

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mike

 

[eganx]

Another classic fredball post......please stop posting political emails that get forwarded to you. I have yet to see a political fredball post that is anything but right wing scare tactics, not that I'm right or left, I equally despise all politicians.

 

[SonicBlue03]

You all will quit making fun of fred when he gets that five million dollar dispensation from the Bank of Nigeria. Oh yes, all of you just wait!

 

[Ironbar]

Here's another site to de-bunk your bunk fred:

Learn the Truth about H.R. 4646

And seriously, quit posting this crap.

 

[JimmyS1985]

I hate to break it to you fredball, but its gonna take some kind of increase in taxes to pay down the debt. Sure it was good times (mainly for just the wealthiest Americans) having those Bush tax cuts in place, but now its time to pay the piper, plus at least 12 years of compound interest.

Think of tax cuts, as forced future tax increases, plus compound interest on top of it all. Former Bush Administration Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil pointed this out to Dick Cheney that the 2003 tax cuts the administration was planning on passing (and did) was going to result in both forced future tax increases and forced spending cuts, or the federal government would face a huge increase in debt. Dick Cheney's reply to Paul O'Neil bringing this to his attention was "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

As we all know, there was no cut in spending to meet the reduced revenue, there was no tax increase so far, and thats why the country is in the national debt situation it is in currently. Oh well, it's not like people weren't warned this would happen so it should be no surprise to any of us, and yet somehow it is to some.

 

[Burt Gummer]

its gonna take some kind of increase in taxes to pay down the debt.

Paying down the debt of this already bankrupt nation is not possible without printing the dollar in oblivion/hyperinflation/destruction of the dollar.

If everyone paid 100% of their wages toward the debt it would NOW take 22 years to pay it off. In other words" impossible.

The recent attempt to trim the budget was a laughable farce. An unnoticeable, tiny amount - a rounding error. Like you cutting back $5 a month on what you spend on groceries.

The Fed Reserve fraud will end with the destruction of our currency and economy. There is no political solution. Politics is a sham and a fraud.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Thats incorrect, I will admit we are in a more difficult situation than we were with the debt situation after WWII due to not having a baby boom, having aging baby boomers, low worker-SS recipient ratios as compared to the past, and much higher healthcare costs than in the past, but we have in the past had Debt-GDP ratios, within older Americans lifetimes, of this magnitude and we paid it down.

The lowest the debt ever got after 1945 was in 1980, the year Jimmy Carter left office, at 32.5% of GDP, and $900,000,000. Reagan passed his 1981 tax cut, and the national debt ballooned, I think in one year alone the deficit increased by as much as 15% of GDP.

Reagan had to pass tax increases as the debt quickly spiraled out of control, and by the time he left office he had taken back half of his tax cut, however the damage was done, the debt had increased to $2.6 trillion by the time Reagan left office, and increased further due to the Savings and Loans crisis under George Bush Sr.

Then Clinton passed his 1993 Budget bill without the support of any Republicans in part due to large tax increases on wealthy Americans in the bill. House Minority leader at the time, Newt Gingrich, predicted this increase in taxes on wealthy Americans would result in the next Great Depression, but then we had 7 years of unfettered economic expansion and job creation despite the "Handicap" of higher taxes than during the Reagan administration.

Bush passed his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, job growth was virtually non-existent during his administration, especially when population increase is factored in, and he started several new spending programs that were not paid for with surtaxes or spending cuts elsewhere to pay for them such as the Department of Homeland Security, two costly wars which will add up to several trillion dollars once the compound interest is paid off, and Medicare Part D.

If you want to see debt levels to go back down as a percentage of GDP, like they did in the years between 1945 and 1980, we need to go to a pre-1981 tax structure, which involves tax increases. I never said this solution would be popular, but if you really want to pay down the debt, that is what has to be done.

 

[powersbj]

I hate to break it to you fredball, but its gonna take some kind of increase in taxes to pay down the debt.

It's going to take a revenue increase to pay down the debt, excessive taxes decreases revenue as the UK has found out. Lower taxes, on a broad base, increases the revenue.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I stopped reading at "Subject: DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS"

That's a sure sign that it's a B.S. chain email that someone got suckered into passing along.

For anyone who's outraged by this email, I have some ocean front property in Ohio that I can make you a hell of a deal on.

 

[Mikej]

It's going to take a revenue increase to pay down the debt, excessive taxes decreases revenue as the UK has found out. Lower taxes, on a broad base, increases the revenue.

OOooo yeah, there's an idea. Let's reduce the taxes on the wealthiest of Americans!!!

Just remember when the good ol' US of A is back in the pink again that it was MY idea....!

You're very welcome!


Mike

 

[JimmyS1985]

If your theory holds water, were presidents TRuman through Carter just a fluke in that they had much higher taxes than post 1981, and a lot of the time had better GDP growth than the Reagan through Bush years?

Eisenhower seemed to manage quite well with a 91% tax on incomes over $250k, plus he put men in space, built the interstate highway, had a decent economy throughout his entire tenure but for 1958, and a stronger middle class than what we have today. He was also the last Republican president to make significant gains at paying down debt, and he left office back in 1961.

I never said what I proposed would be popular, but I think Starve the Beast fiscal theory, and supply-side economics have proven themselves a failure, in that not once has tax cuts since Reagan first enacted supply-side economics, "paid for themselves". I know the next response, you will mention Kennedy's tax cuts that went into effect in 1964 and pulled in more revenue. The top marginal rate went down from around 90% to 70% under Kennedy, so if its an argument for a similar tax structure to Kennedy, than I am all for that.

Starve the Beast has pretty much failed in that the idea behind it was that if we lowered government revenues through tax cuts, congress would naturally cut spending. It didnt work, it never worked, after Bush passed his tax cuts, he didnt veto a single spending bill afterwards and earmarks shot through the roof. The popular argument to this is the country really went down the bubblegumter, after 2007 when the Democrats took office, but the fact remains that even during good times with a healthy mortgage bubble and a good economy, the debt was still going up since he passed the tax cuts.

While tax cuts are popular politically, spending cuts are not. One mans waste of tax dollars is another mans paycheck, hence you will run into strong opposition when you attempt to cut certain things that you deem wasteful. This was the fatal flaw in Reaganomics was while Reagan could get the tax cuts passed easily, he couldn't get people to give up things that the government provided to pay for the tax cuts.

Also when George W Bush enacted his tax cuts, he made no attempts to cut spending, he drastically raised military spending though, created a new department of Homeland security, signed off on an unfunded Medicare Part D and go to war with another country with very questionable reasoning as to why. On top of all that the economy left behind by him was shedding several hundred thousand jobs every month when Obama took office, does anyone honestly believe that McCain would of magically balanced the budget and we would have a much stronger economy than we do now, if we went with his plan which was to pass more tax cuts for wealthy people?

I would feel sorry for the Republican party due to the fact that this election is not looking too good for Republicans if they at the very minimum learned from mistakes, ideas enacted during Bush's presidency, proven to fail, and then change their ideas, but they seem to follow the exact same formula every 4 years which is tax cuts will solve everything.

The current formula that Romney is picking is again, more tax cuts. As far as I can tell the only thing that tax cuts do is redistribute the wealth and income to the wealthy in this country, its essentially socialism for wealthy people, and balloon the debt, but for the general welfare for the public as a whole tax cuts seem to do more damage than good.

 

[kenno]

WAIT!
No "none firearm" related posts!!!!
Rule #9
I've had warnings for same!
but then, I'm also the same guy that calls a Liberal/Progressive a Communist

 

[powersbj]

The core problem is corruption not tax rates or spending. The two parties are creating a class war to distract us from how criminal they have all become.

What if the government rejects the Constitution? | Fox News

 

[Redcap]

 

[rufus]

Source: <broken link removed>

Our liberal friends believe the rich don't pay enough in taxes. I believe they don't have a clue what their talking about, as usual.

 

[JimmyS1985]

Thats a bias'd source, The Tax Foundation has ties to big business and ties to various conservative groups. I prefer reports by the CBO, their budgetary math is spot on.

Anyways regarding the graph, it doesnt paint the whole picture. When in 1980 the wealthiest 1% earned 9% of all income in the country, today the wealthiest 1% controls 20% of all income. Wealth distribution has skewed toward the top, and been extracted from everyone else. The bottom 50% of Americans control less than 2% of the nations financial wealth in this country.

The median family income has flat lined, ever since 1980. So no one, except for 1 in 100 Americans, is better off financially in 2012, than the same families were in 1980. We've made no progress. GDP per Capita has risen, but workers wages have not kept up, any gain from extra work, only goes to the rich guys bank account.

Tax cuts generally just transfer wealth, its socialism essentially since it redistributes wealth upwards. Mitt Romney is a socialist for wealthy people since he wants to redistribute the wealth and your money to his rich cronies. If you're not wealthy, you are not voting in your own economic interest when he wants to pass even more tax cuts for wealthy people. You should know how much I don't like corporate welfare and socialism for already wealthy people.

One of my proposals to fixing the debt problem and vast disproportionate wealth in this country, is a flat tax based on how much of the nations wealth your bracket controls. So if you are in the wealthiest 1% of Americans who controls around 45% of the nations financial wealth, ergo, you pay 45% of the nations taxes because thats how much of the money you control.

On the contrary Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain had tax proposals in place that had a 0% tax on money made from investments and capital gains. These tax policies would of lowered an investor billionaire like Warren Buffet who has $42 billion, his tax outlays would be around $0 at the end of the year. But with 9% flat tax and 9% sales tax like in the 999 plan, the bottom 85-90 Americans would feel a tax hike, while the government would pull in significantly less revenue under this policy, so we would of faced severe cuts in government services, while the government felt bigger as the vast majority had to pay much higher taxes than before Herman Cain would of enacted his 999 plan.

BTW Redcap, my boss who is a die hard Reaganite had to concede that Obama can't possibly be the worst president ever since he did kill Osama Bin Laden. If that didn't make you happy like it did me, you don't love this country.

 

[JK77]

How many of you buy American made products?

 

[Tangent123123]

It doesn't matter if you raise taxes or lower this or raise that to pay off the debt. The more money we make the more they will spend. Nothing will change until we start demanding more accountability for what is being spent, where it's being spent and why we are spending it.