RidinRails;265195 wrote:
Easy.

Legalize Marijuana and tax the shit out of it.

They just had a show on tv about the place in California where its legal to grow/sell. And 1 guy alone paid in over 8 million dollars tax.

this is a good idea... it's what they did with booze... outlawed it then realized they could make a buttload on taxing of it...

our country would have more money, stoners would be more happy, and it's one less waste of jail space and police effort to bust ppl with pot...

Legalize Marijuana and tax the shit out of it.

They just had a show on tv about the place in California where its legal to grow/sell. And 1 guy alone paid in over 8 million dollars tax.

GarageAlchemist;264809 wrote:
I really liked Chucks idea of tax credits to businesses who hire employees.

On a side note. I wish we could vote for who gets cabinet positions. Obama is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a economist, military strategist, or an expert in any field really. Its his advisors who give him the information for him to make a decision on, and they can put any sort of slant on it that they want.

So the president isn't to blame, his advisors are?

So Bush was never to blame for all the crap people blame on him, his advisors were!

Holder sure seems to be doing a great job...

http://reason.org/bs/

And he's a lefty, "get used to it", kind of sounded like a forewarning, video and article.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6723831&page=1

On a side note. I wish we could vote for who gets cabinet positions. Obama is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, a economist, military strategist, or an expert in any field really. Its his advisors who give him the information for him to make a decision on, and they can put any sort of slant on it that they want.

MisterCMK;264777 wrote:
I'd still think he was a fucking idiot, just like Obama.

i didnt mean propose the SAME bill, i meant whatever bill he thought was the best suited for the situation. the point was, that no matter what "plan" was chosen nothing is going to change over night. two months isnt even long enough for fema to get water to the superdome let alone enough time for the govt to fix an economic crisis.

DaveH;264784 wrote:

1. refund all taxes from the 2008 calendar year (stimulus)

2. start a flat/fair tax system, 3 levels:

$0-$10,000 - no tax
$10,001-$25,000 - $500 a year
$25,001-infinity - $2000 a year

3. Document current Govt spending levels to set up a base. Then reduce all spending across the board proportionately so that we don't spend more than we take in according to 2. (above)

4. Enjoy prosperity

Where do I sign?

$0-$10,000 - no tax
$10,001-$25,000 - $500 a year
$25,001-infinity - $2000 a year

3. Document current Govt spending levels to set up a base. Then reduce all spending across the board proportionately so that we don't spend more than we take in according to 2. (above)

4. Enjoy prosperity

24valvenotak;264722 wrote:
it makes me wonder (not because of you specifically, but all the obama haters on this forum) what people would be saying if mccain put forth a stimulus bill and after two whole months the world wasnt magically "fixed."

I'd still think he was a fucking idiot, just like Obama.

MisterCMK;264707 wrote:
...which brings me to a point I mentioned in a different thread, fire the current politicians and bring in new ones.

it makes me wonder (not because of you specifically, but all the obama haters on this forum) what people would be saying if mccain put forth a stimulus bill and after two whole months the world wasnt magically "fixed."

MisterCMK;264707 wrote:
...which brings me to a point I mentioned in a different thread, fire the current politicians and bring in new ones.

Unfortunately, I think that's what a lot of Americans thought they were getting with Obama.

Trafik Jamz;264668 wrote:
Now for CMK...yes, gov't spending should be curbed. Neither party seems to be willing to actually DO it, both will TALK ABOUT IT, but when they have power they act just like the opposing party.

You have a much better chance of thrash sending his kids to a public school run by the leader of the Socialist party of america than you do getting politicians to cut spending.

...which brings me to a point I mentioned in a different thread, fire the current politicians and bring in new ones.

00Accord;264670 wrote:
they need to stop trading oil and other related commodities on the stock market. It makes the prices too volatile and erodes consumer confidence. Speculation is the main reason oil got to $147. Oil prices are no longer set based on supply and demand. .

speculation cost a fargo business almost their annual gross. ouch.

It is also interesting to see that only a couple main factors led to the recession (the biggest being horrible lending practices by banks). If they were to just focus on fixing those areas and not worry about the other BS, I'd be willing to bet that it would have the same trickle-down effect that the original problem had. Maybe not, but who knows.

You have a much better chance of thrash sending his kids to a public school run by the leader of the Socialist party of america than you do getting politicians to cut spending.

* How much must pretax prices go down before you're comfortable paying an additional 30% on your home purchase, kid's tuition and doctor appointments? Increasing the cost of buying a home by 30% would not stimulate the housing market. On a house currently selling for $200,000, a 30% tax means you have to borrow $60,000 more just to get in the door. That doesn't make a lot of sense. 

* Arguments that the Fair Tax would eliminate the underground economy are less than persuasive. Add a 30% federal hit to a 6% state sales tax, and you have created a golden opportunity for smuggling. Look at what happened to cigarettes when states increased their prices with higher sales taxes. They're now marketed out of the trunks of cars. Those cheating on their income taxes would cheat on their sales taxes. Just substitute the term "black market" for underground economy.

* The idea that the Fair Tax would eliminate complexity in the tax code also fails to recognize reality. Special interests would almost certainly hire lobbyists to propose exemptions for such things as home purchases, medical services and education. I spent some time in Washington, D.C., and I never met a lawmaker who wanted to run for re-election on the platform of hitting housing, medical services and education with a 30% tax.

* The poor would get little from the Fair Tax because they really don't pay income taxes under our current system. For 2008, if you're married with one child under 17, you have no tax on your first $31,400 in income. The Fair Tax can't beat a zero tax liability. Any real savings would come from the elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes.

* Bush administration economists have projected that the Fair Tax would actually increase taxes for those making more than $30,000 and less than $200,000. That's because a flat 30% rate on their gross consumption would suck more dollars than a graduated rate on taxable income, after deductions, exemptions and the like. Taxpayers in that range would lose the benefit of the 10%, 15%, 25% and 28% rates on their taxable income.

* Transition rules -- the rules that would apply as one shuttered income taxes and started up the Fair Tax -- would cause chaos. Consider your Roth IRA account. You've already paid income taxes on those dollars. You wouldn't be happy when you spent the money and had to pay a tax again. 

* Somebody would have to enforce the sales tax law or it would have no teeth. So, in practical effect, the plan would not eliminate the IRS. The plan would just convert its function from income-tax compliance to sales-tax compliance. Some agency would have to step in.

* Would the national sales tax be enough to raise as much revenue as our current system? Yes, if the rate was high enough, no if it wasn't. I'd bet everything I have that the rate wouldn't remain fixed.

No taxes on businesses should help make US companies more competitive in foreign market. No/few exemptions should rid us of all our lobbyists and BS loopholes. The black markets (drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.) and illegal immigrants start paying towards our budget. If illegal immigrants want to stay illegal, then they will not receive “prebate”, but will still be required to pay taxes every time that they buy anything.

Because I under that it is very unlikely that the FairTax will ever gain enough traction to pass I’ll make another suggestion. How about we turn every person that is accepting unemployment into an INS official? I don’t have a major problem with immigration. I do, however, have a problem with social programs that are specifically designed for people that will never pay into them. If the unemployment rate is 5%, that puts 15 million people on unemployment. That’s around 1 INS official for every illegal immigrant in the country. Round them all up, give them the choice to legalize and start paying taxes or get shipped back home. If 10 million decide that they want to stay and their average income is just $20,000/year and their effective tax rate is 15% we’d still bring in an additional 30 billion dollars each year.

Time to finish my lunch break and get back to work. I'm glad that I still have a job; I hope that everything can turn around. I hope that US citizens can bring some personal accountability back into their lives and turn our country around. I'm sorry, but borrowing money to stimulate the economy will only draw out our problems. I can hear Obama's next campaign slogan already, "Let's finish this!" I think that we all know that 4 years from now we’ll be a long ways away from the “Change” people believed in.

Lucas

How about instead of a gov't program that spends money to stimulate the economy, we instead offer additional tax credits for any increase in the number of employees a company employs...tax credits would stay in effect for 2 years per employee hired. Right now you get to write off the wages of an employee on your taxes...I say take it a step further and allow a company to write off 110% of the wages of any new employee so long as an existing employee wasn't cut to take advantage of this program. IOW if you employed 10 people in 2008, and they all made an average $50,000/year you (under my program) would get to write off $55,000 with any new hire, so long as the following is true: The median wages of existing employees did not go down AND the total number of employees increases vs a previous year. I'm willing to double this tax credit to 20% if the employer is moving jobs from China/India/Etc... back to the USA.

Initially, the taxes collected from businesses would decrease, but the amount collected from individuals would increase (due to another person being employed...I'm NOT calling for increasing personal income tax) which would cause more people to have money to spend since they are employed, which would cause businesses to have increased sales, which would cause them to have to hire more people, which would cause the new people to spend more money at businesses, which would require even more people to be hired to keep up with demand.

And to think, this "liberal" poster thinks that the economy can be stimulated by tax cuts/credits....but only if applied carefully.

MisterCMK;264609 wrote:
Bring back accountability. Zac for president.

you must be mistaken, this is the most accountable and transparent gov. in history.... remember?