Six months until the largest tax hike in history...
 

Grab your ankles folks... this one is going to hurt!

This should go far in boosting the economic recovery ...

Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History

Read more here.

Dave

Good old Grover!

Please, just post links, okay?

John

In my opinion, it's disingenuous to call the expiration of a tax cut that was only passed due to the fact that it had a sunset clause in it a tax hike. If Bush and Co. had wanted to make it permanent, why didn't they write it that way to begin with and engage the public debate on that basis?

That said, I think there are fair number of those tax breaks that probably should remain and some that shouldn't and each should be debated on its own merits. However, we need to finally get past the notion that we can have it all and not have to pay for it. Hell, Dubya passed these tax cuts at the same time he was launching two wars. He thought everything would balance out as long as we "went shopping.":confused:

Fixed!

Dave

I somewhat agree about calling them hikes, but they sure ain't cuts and we will be paying more at a very bad time.

I find it interesting that the GOP lowered the poors tax rate to 10% and there is no move by the Dems to keep it there.

Pete

The timing is certainly poor with the stalled recovery.

As for the lowest marginal tax rate, it may not make that much difference with all the credits, etc. on the low end (i.e., 10% or 15% of an Adjusted Gross Income of zero is still zero).

I was earning over $100,000 when Dubya passed that tax cut, all it saved me was enough for a pack of Marlboros every two weeks - tax cut my arse.

I believe we can all agree that the election of President Obama was actually a covert maneuver by our enemies specifically designed to let these tax cuts expire just as they were written because they know that it will topple America. The end is near folks!

There is absolutely no chance that any of this is being blown out of proportion to score political points. If I understand this correctly, the "largest tax hike in history" would return rates to the level they were before the Republican written tax cut. Now that it is expiring as written by Republicans, it is somehow an historic tax hike.

This kind of stuff isn't getting us anywhere folks. Here's what I know- we cut taxes and then started spending quite a lot on wars. Wars that are still going on. I can't say I've seen the tax cuts boost the economy thus far. In fact, it looks kinda bad. Maybe it's time we put them back to where they were when the economy was doing really well. Maybe that level was the ideal point on the Laffer curve and we've lowered them below the optimal rate.

same here, those cuts were geared toward the ruling class and they made out like bandits not for the working middle class

The Ship of State has become the Boat of State.

Boat=Break Out Another Trillion

So ante up Gents, we're going to spend our way to prosperity. Considering that our currency is based on debt, buying yourself rich makes sense, in a weird, upside down sort of way.

Chas

I'll believe it when I see it. And when I see it, I'm thinking it's not going to be the doomsday scenario some of us will make it out to be.

But anyhow, by then we very well may have a Republican Congress that will just let it happen so they can point fingers, bitch and assign blame as they do absolutely nothing to stop it.

Dave

Next week the corporate profit numbers will come out. Expectations are that they will be higher than ever. Yet they are sitting on $1.84 trillon at last count. So why are the corporations not providing job growth? Oh no, it is so much easier to blame the Administration and bow low before Goldman Sachs et. al. Just make sure you are facing them when you bow.:rolleyes:

The Corporate States of America, please tell me why you support this those of you who vote for it?

I normally bet light when all I have is a pair.

Chas

So how much longer do you think the corporocrats can hold off after the November elections?. I tend to think that the public is smart enough to realize that the Republicans would not have done anything, before they were even sworn in, to cause a sudden burst in hiring. They would probably take credit for it by saying that their election gave confidence to the employers. That would be half right. The fat cats would be hoping that a GOP congress would protect their right to screw their employees.

Regards,

D-Ray

This is what we're going to be electing this November. (And we are going to be electing them this November.)

"Americans think they have a god-given right to a job. They don't." Carly Fiorina, Republican Candidate for Senate, California

“People ask me, what are you going to do to develop jobs in your State? Well that’s not my job as a US Senator." Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for Senate, Nevada

They're telling you who they are, folks! Wake the fuck up!

John

Absolutely correct, except for the quip in blue.

Dave

Obama doesn't get the credit for cutting some of the tax loopholes that promoted the exporting of jobs instead of products.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ate-tax-scheme

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/...getting-better

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/u...42f00aRCRD.htm

He is also working on removing cold war restrictions on exports, in order to create and protect high tech jobs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1624560520100416

I think the primary failure of the Obama administration has been in communicating how the measures they are taking are assisting working Americans.

Regards,

D-Ray

Since the majority of the media is in the hands of the Rupert Murdochs of this world how do you suggest they do that?:rolleyes:

What!!:eek: You mean we don't have a left-wing biased media?:rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

Clarification please?
 

Quote from article. Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.


In the U.K. there's mounting pressure on the health service to reduce costs by buying generic rather than brand name drugs. Is this what your legislation is trying to achieve?

I've seen arguments on both sides.

For. The N.H.S. is the largest single buyer of medical products in the U.K. but despite this, they have failed to get a decent discount from the manufacturers of brand name drugs. So they look for generic drugs.

Against. It's the high cost of brand name drugs that gives the manufacturers enough profit to pay for new research. Cut the profit, you cut the research.

Buy Fish Mox for the infection and whiskey for the pain.

Then tell 'em all to go to hell.

Chas

I see the ancient Greeks were not the only ones to believe in mythology.:rolleyes:

Rotflmao!!

Pete

Pardon?
 

? I'm not sure about your reference; are you saying the drug companies are not spending their profits on research? I didn't say all profits, but enough to get the next wonder drug to market and sell under the brand name for as long as they can.

It may be different in Britain but in the US the Federal government pays for a lot of it and even does some of it at the National Institutes of Health. Some more of it is done at colleges and universities, also with Federal support. Much of what the pharmaceutical companies do is figuring out how to change one molecule without changing the therapeutic properties of a drug when the patent's about to expire.

John

What John said plus the vast amount of money they spend on advertisements (how that couple got those two claw foot bathtubs into the wheat field beats me). The only new drug seen of late seem to have to do with ED or enlarged prostate (why do the ads say that women should not take that prostate drug, or has something changed in the female anatomy that I am unaware of.)

Plus all the free samples they hand out to doctors, when Florence's heart specialist changed her BP meds she gave her a 90 days supply, that same supply sells for over $500 (used to be $300 but inflation you know, been pretty bad these last four years.)

In the old days doctors used leeches, now we have drug companies.

Oh Magoo, you've done it again.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

I'd love to see Steve Martin do a commercial for restless leg syndrome.

Pete

Give the man a Kewpie Doll! :)

So, the Leeches used to BE the treatment, now the leeches MAKE the treatment? Interesting.:rolleyes:

Dave

You guys need to lay off of big pharma.

My neighbor the drug dealer is wanting a new Corvette.

Chas

It seems to me they're spending a lot keeping the results of unfavorable research out of the news and away from regulators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/he...e&ref=homepage

Much the same happened with Vioxx, IIRC.

What goes around
 

Quote Finbow "It seems to me they're spending a lot keeping the results of unfavorable research out of the news and away from regulators."

With us the worst was Thalidomide. Having passed all the tests it was prescribed as a sedative and to treat morning sickness during pregnancy. In those days, sedatives, sleeping pills, uppers and downers were seen as wonder drugs and with hindsight, over-prescribed. When babies started appearing with limbs either deformed or missing, it took years and years before the manufacturers (and by default the government) admitted any kind of liability and gave proper financial support for the families involved.

Marrylander and Boreus. I think the main difference between UK and USA health care is the backbone of the UK is the National Health Service with private care available for those who can afford it, while the backbone of the USA is private health care with public health care available to those who can't afford it. Maybe a bit simplistic, but that's what it looks like from the outside.

As to research, the NHS does research but a lot is duplication of what has already been done. For some reason that I've never understood, in general the UK does not accept test results from other countries (including the USA) so has to do its own. A lot of wasted time, wasted money to prove what's already been proved. As a guess, the more litiginous nature of things in the USA would make for more stringent testing of any drug before allowing it on the market.

The Glaxo Smith Klein deal does not surprise me in the least. Listen closely to the TV commercials sometime, with all these "new" drugs the side effects are worse than the disease they profess to alieviate. Big Pharma is only interested in research for diseases that will provide the widest possible market. If what ails you is only something affecting, say 5% of the population, you are SOL.

Maybe your Thalidomide reference answers your own question. FWIW, the Food and Drug Administration in the US doesn't accept test results from other nations either. Hell, the same applies to consensus codes and standards in general. We don't accept the DIN, the Germans don't accept ASTM, NFPA, etc. I guess all it's human nature not to trust "foreigners" and their silly concepts of what makes things tick.:rolleyes:

I trust no pharmaceutical company. They are a leading cause of death in this country.

But they are perfectly willing to let some of the compunds the drugs are made from in frm China.:eek:

We had the exact same experience with Thalidomide here.

John