[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd *really* like to see somebody try to justify the Bush tax cuts adding 1.6 trillion dollars worth of jobs. I still fail to understand why Republicans are happy to be so vehement about leaving these off the table.

Forget the Bush tax cuts because of course that's just letting you keep more of what you worked for. Let's discuss all the jobs created from the additional revenue generated prior to the Bush tax cuts. I'd really like to see someone justify higher taxes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Forget the Bush tax cuts because of course that's just letting you keep more of what you worked for. Let's discuss all the jobs created from the additional revenue generated prior to the Bush tax cuts. I'd really like to see someone justify higher taxes.

So you are suggesting that there is no relationship between the Bush tax cuts and the numbers Dork. posted? Coincidence?

[OldManMac]

An excellent article on the debt ceiling fiasco. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, they're not, because they have no principles.

Brian Dickerson: Would you leave your kids with Sen. McConnell? | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

[BadKosh]

Don't buy it if you can't afford it. Seems political hacks don't get that simple point. I suggest those who want to be politicians SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Don't buy it if you can't afford it. Seems political hacks don't get that simple point. I suggest those who want to be politicians SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO.

Unfortunately, our governments can't afford most of what they buy and, given the politics, your policy would result in either a Soviet-style society where every cent is spent on military or the polar opposite where every cent is spent on social services and no defense.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

An excellent article on the debt ceiling fiasco. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, they're not, because they have no principles.

Brian Dickerson: Would you leave your kids with Sen. McConnell? | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly take ANYTHING seriously that comes out of Detroit Broketroit.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly take ANYTHING seriously that comes out of Detroit Broketroit.

-t

Address the issue, and not the city where the article happened to come from. How childish.

[turtle777]

Grumpy much ?

The issue as I see it is that the article is useless.
Yes, I read it, it contained no good arguments or logical conclusions. Just some ramblings and random thoughts stringed together.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Grumpy much ?

The issue as I see it is that the article is useless.
Yes, I read it, it contained no good arguments or logical conclusions. Just some ramblings and random thoughts stringed together.

-t

I'm not grumpy at all; I just call it like I see it, and I'm not surprised you wouldn't agree with the article. You're just a shill for the corporate takeover of America.

[ironknee]

the thing is i don't get why they would be a shill for the big corporations...

they make big money and has no idea or care that u exist

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're just a shill for the corporate takeover of America.

What else is new...

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What else is new...

-t

Apparently not much in your world, as you really are asleep, and obviously unaware of what's really happening around you.

[besson3c]

He's also a shill for the turtle lobby.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Apparently not much in your world, as you really are asleep, and obviously unaware of what's really happening around you.

LOL, you mean, unaware of how Obama is failing so badly that even his former endorsements now scorn his Faildministration?

Steve Wynn Annihilates Barack Obama: "This Administration Is The Greatest Wet Blanket To Business And Job Creation In My Lifetime" | zero hedge

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, you mean, unaware of how Obama is failing so badly that even his former endorsements now scorn his Faildministration?

Steve Wynn Annihilates Barack Obama: "This Administration Is The Greatest Wet Blanket To Business And Job Creation In My Lifetime" | zero hedge

-t

The issue as I see it is that the article is useless.
Yes, I read it, it contained no good arguments or logical conclusions. Just some ramblings and random thoughts stringed together.

As I've said numerous times, corporate profits are at all time highs. There is plenty of money lying around to invest in new jobs, but it's not being spent to do such, because the wealthy have discovered that they can get people to work for next to nothing, and take on more work than they already do (productivity has grown steadily for over a decade, despite people being layed off and outright terminated).

I will agree that Obama is a failure, but it's because he's nothing but another buddy of the rich, who aren't helping the country, but are helping themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you are suggesting that there is no relationship between the Bush tax cuts and the numbers Dork. posted? Coincidence?

No, I'm saying the "Bush tax cuts" are a red herring.

WashingtonTimes
The fact of the matter is that in 2003 Bush cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15% and in two years stocks rose 20% and in three years $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20k in real terms. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion which constituted the largest four-year increase in US history. According to the US Treasury Dept, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40% in the three years following the Bush tax cuts and by the way; "the rich" paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the last 40 years. How did the AP twist this phenomena? "Surprise windfall". Coincidence?

It's what we've been telling you about tax cuts all along. They stimulate the economy which is why (and said as much!) Obama maintained them. Remember? Now they're evil again? Does not compute. Trust me, the problem is government spending and a thinned-out tax base, not consumer spending.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The issue as I see it is that the article is useless.
Yes, I read it, it contained no good arguments or logical conclusions. Just some ramblings and random thoughts stringed together.

Wow, awesome copy & paste. You'are making the average Democrat look smart.

-t

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The issue as I see it is that the article is useless.
Yes, I read it, it contained no good arguments or logical conclusions. Just some ramblings and random thoughts stringed together.

As I've said numerous times, corporate profits are at all time highs. There is plenty of money lying around to invest in new jobs, but it's not being spent to do such, because the wealthy have discovered that they can get people to work for next to nothing, and take on more work than they already do (productivity has grown steadily for over a decade, despite people being layed off and outright terminated).

I will agree that Obama is a failure, but it's because he's nothing but another buddy of the rich, who aren't helping the country, but are helping themselves.

NO! Its the COST OF AN EMPLOYEE that has skyrocketed under the heavy handed regulations (the wet blanket over jobs creation) and the regulations that keep companies from being able to develop new sources of income. Taxes on a lot of new crap, and thousands of regulations slows the business processes down. Owe-bamas' Administration and the Marxists in the Senate will just about ruin this country before we vote them out in 2012.

When Barry puts his 0bamacare on the table, maybe then he'll be ready to discuss the budget and spending limits. Until then, he's just another liberal idiot.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, I'm saying the "Bush tax cuts" are a red herring.

WashingtonTimes
The fact of the matter is that in 2003 Bush cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15% and in two years stocks rose 20% and in three years $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20k in real terms. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion which constituted the largest four-year increase in US history. According to the US Treasury Dept, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40% in the three years following the Bush tax cuts and by the way; "the rich" paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the last 40 years. How did the AP twist this phenomena? "Surprise windfall". Coincidence?

It's what we've been telling you about tax cuts all along. They stimulate the economy which is why (and said as much!) Obama maintained them. Remember? Now they're evil again? Does not compute. Trust me, the problem is government spending and a thinned-out tax base, not consumer spending.

Propaganda, had the tax rate been left the same stocks would still have rose 20%, and the same wealth would have been created and the same number of jobs. The only difference is even more taxes would have been collected. Now considering every one of those years is a deficit year, that extra tax money from the extra economic activity would have been helpful.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

NO! Its the COST OF AN EMPLOYEE that has skyrocketed under the heavy handed regulations (the wet blanket over jobs creation) and the regulations that keep companies from being able to develop new sources of income. Taxes on a lot of new crap, and thousands of regulations slows the business processes down. Owe-bamas' Administration and the Marxists in the Senate will just about ruin this country before we vote them out in 2012.

When Barry puts his 0bamacare on the table, maybe then he'll be ready to discuss the budget and spending limits. Until then, he's just another liberal idiot.

More false hoods. Businesses want to make money period. A company isn't going to put itself out of business out of protest when say it has to pay a extra 1000 a year on a employee over a Marxist social service requirement. Might add 50 000 a year to its books for 50 employee's but its just the cost of doing business.

Something that has been lost on a lot of people. A Business NEEDS consumers, and if all consumers are living check by check and don't have the money to spend on stuff, businesses don't have customers. So while its good and dandy that business has cut costs and wages down to the most minimum to keep prices low, its also as a trend kept money out of consumers pockets to spend on business. As all the wealth gets locked up in bank accounts and share holders accounts its being drained from the economy vs being circulated in the economy.

Option 1, all businesses pay employees as little as possible and horde as much profit as possible net result less economic activity
Option 2, businesses pay decent wages and benefits freeing up consumers to waste money net result more economics activity, more taxes collected, less money horded away in banks and shareholders.

We have been doing option 1 for a long time now and its catching up to us. The rich get richer, the poor gets poorer and the institutions which run and operate everything are going broke.

[turtle777]

You don't get it, do you ?

Guess where Steve Wynn is investing ? In Macao, not the US. Because he gets more bang for the buck.
Really, you lefties should brush up on the concept of global economics.

And next, you have OldGrumpy cry that I'm a shill for corporate America.
Well, shit, if you punish companies doing business in America, guess what ? They go somewhere else.
I don't get why anybody is surprised, and why that would be a dishonorable thing.

-t

[sek929]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, shit, if you punish companies doing business in America, guess what ? They go somewhere else.-t

They've already been doing that for the last 30 years so they can utilize slave labor in other countries to make obscene profits.

I've got a question: If the rich are taxed so disproportionately then how have they continued to amass more and more wealth making the gap between rich and poor ever greater? Seems to me if the government was taking so much of their money they wouldn't continue to get richer.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You don't get it, do you ?

Guess where Steve Wynn is investing ? In Macao, not the US. Because he gets more bang for the buck.
Really, you lefties should brush up on the concept of global economics.

And next, you have OldGrumpy cry that I'm a shill for corporate America.
Well, shit, if you punish companies doing business in America, guess what ? They go somewhere else.
I don't get why anybody is surprised, and why that would be a dishonorable thing.

-t

Well therein lies the rub. It is a global economy. Which is why this "tax cuts are the solution to every problem" mantra on the right is so short sighted. The marginal tax rates for corporations in the US are among the highest in the world but the effective tax rates are among the lowest. I simply don't see it as a compelling argument that further lowering a marginal tax rate that isn't even being paid anyway is going to magically spur job creation in the US . When large investors can put there money in an Asian Emerging Markets hedge fund ... an even lower US capital gains tax is great for them ... and it's great for job creation in Asia ... but it's not a given that job creation in the US will be positively impacted. Not when the average monthly wages paid in China is $153. Taxes are just one of several costs of doing business ... and it's not even the primary one. Corporations are organized around the principle of maximizing profit. So if there is more profit to be made by investing in countries other than the US then they will do it if left to their own devices.

This "race to the bottom" in taxation reminds me of how professional sports teams play one city against another in order to get new stadiums built. The cities compete with each other by offering this tax abatement and that tax abatement to either keep a team in place or induce one to relocate. The owners make out quite nicely ... but the supposed benefits to the tax payers in terms of net job creation is dubious at best.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You don't get it, do you ?

Guess where Steve Wynn is investing ? In Macao, not the US. Because he gets more bang for the buck.
Really, you lefties should brush up on the concept of global economics.

And next, you have OldGrumpy cry that I'm a shill for corporate America.
Well, shit, if you punish companies doing business in America, guess what ? They go somewhere else.
I don't get why anybody is surprised, and why that would be a dishonorable thing.

-t

1) Disable then install bad government in Macao, ruin the Country for US interests
2) Companies might have over sea operations as well but they still maintain operations here as well. When you point out a company that has left the US market to operate over sea's I will believe you. Just name one company that packed up its doors and left the United states. Just one.... Oh common just one....

Manufacturing has been moved to over sea's and no amount of tax breaks will solve that unless you want to reduce working wages to $10.00 a day. And that can be mitigated with import fee's to make it more expensive to produce over seas well if the government was not controlled by business.

Originally Posted by sek929 

They've already been doing that for the last 30 years so they can utilize slave labor in other countries to make obscene profits.

I've got a question: If the rich are taxed so disproportionately then how have they continued to amass more and more wealth making the gap between rich and poor ever greater? Seems to me if the government was taking so much of their money they wouldn't continue to get richer.

And why don't they move to a more tax friendly place then...

OWA

This "race to the bottom" in taxation reminds me of how professional sports teams play one city against another in order to get new stadiums built. The cities compete with each other by offering this tax abatement and that tax abatement to either keep a team in place or induce one to relocate. The owners make out quite nicely ... but the supposed benefits to the tax payers in terms of net job creation is dubious at best.

The race to the bottom is never good. Look at the trucking industry. 30 years ago it made good money. Over the years companies kept going cheaper and cheaper in a race to the bottom. Now they don't make money. Trucks are becoming more dangerous and well the race is over, they are all bottom feeders. We could play the race to the bottom in taxes and win. We could play the race to the bottom for wages and win. But what do we win? Losts of low paying jobs, not enough tax collection to pay for the basics of even defense?


You got 2 kinds of people. Those with money that don't give a dam about the well being of the country and other people. They only care about themselves and their bank accounts. And the rest of us who don't have a lot of money who also use or care about the services which our taxes pay for and who give a dam about the other guy. Its not a right vs left but a have vs have not. The only possible people in the world who make a big stink about taxes and labor laws are those that want to abuse both the most to make the most profit. I don't see it being that great of a loss if they get lost to another country.

[OAW]

Back onto the topic of "debt ceiling politics" .... it should be abundantly clear to all but the most deliberately obtuse that the GOP has seriously overplayed its hand here.

The blue columns show public support for a balanced debt-reduction plan including cuts and revenue; the red columns show support for reducing the debt exclusively through spending cuts. Republican lawmakers genuinely seem to believe that their approach, the red columns, is the popular way to go. In fact, they’re so invested in this, they just might crash the economy on purpose unless the GOP gets exactly what it wants.

Whether Republicans realize it or not, they’re losing this debate, pushing the nation to the brink with a policy Americans don’t like.

Political Animal - The public wants and expects new revenue

This is why I find it so amusing that GOP Leaders like Eric Cantor and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can get on national TV and blather on with their inane talking points about "The American people .... blah blah blah" and "Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ... blah blah blah". You know national politics has become utterly dysfunctional when people who claim to be speaking for the "American people" can actually keep a straight face when they push a policy that their pollsters are surely telling them is opposed by the vast majority of the public.

OAW

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You know national politics has become utterly dysfunctional when people who claim to be speaking for the "American people" can actually keep a straight face when they push a policy that their pollsters are surely telling them is opposed by the vast majority of the public.

I think it's because they think the polls are flawed, perhaps even fixed by the liberal lamestream media. The Tea Party conservatives have their theories on spending and government that they know are right, and they won't let a little thing like reality stand in their way.

I read something a few days ago, and I wish I could remember where I read it. The author was making the point that the old brand of conservatism was at least grounded in reality. It was the liberals back then who tended to stick to grand notions even when it conflicted with reality. ("It works good in practice", the old-time Liberal would say, "But will it work in theory?").

The new conservatives have a lot of theories, and are using the country as a testbed to try them out.

Edit: here it is!
TIME: Fareed Zakaria: How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch With Reality
(another lamestream media writer! he'd have much more credibility if he wrote for zerohedge.com. )

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Propaganda, had the tax rate been left the same stocks would still have rose 20%, and the same wealth would have been created and the same number of jobs. The only difference is even more taxes would have been collected. Now considering every one of those years is a deficit year, that extra tax money from the extra economic activity would have been helpful.

Without anything else to attribute to the 20% stock rise, the increase in family wealth, and the number of jobs created; you're really left with zero evidence to affirm your claim. Worse, had this not also been the case for Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy... it might be easy to ignore the relationship between lower tax rates and increases in revenue.

There's no shortage of propaganda I grant you that. The way to increase tax revenue is to increase the tax base. When more than 9.2% are entirely jobless and the government has already spent $200k/job "saved", there really isn't any other stimulus available.

The destructive propaganda IMO is that our employers aren't paying enough in taxes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Edit: here it is!
TIME: Fareed Zakaria: How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch With Reality
(another lamestream media writer! he'd have much more credibility if he wrote for zerohedge.com. )

Big fan of Zakaria. Good stuff. I've had some epic battles on here over the "spreading democracy to Middle East" crowd 5 or 6 years ago.

greg

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Without anything else to attribute to the 20% stock rise, the increase in family wealth, and the number of jobs created; you're really left with zero evidence to affirm your claim. Worse, had this not also been the case for Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy... it might be easy to ignore the relationship between lower tax rates and increases in revenue.

There's no shortage of propaganda I grant you that. The way to increase tax revenue is to increase the tax base. When more than 9.2% are entirely jobless and the government has already spent $200k/job "saved", there really isn't any other stimulus available.

The destructive propaganda IMO is that our employers aren't paying enough in taxes.

I mostly agree with you but increasing the tax base or the the value of the tax base requires fundamental changes in competition laws to prevent companies from becoming monopolies or duopolies. As it stands now the slow erosion of competition is driving wages down and removing jobs from the economy that feeds the taxation system. Since we can't turn back time and change the tax policy to see if the 20% increase would have occurred anyways we will never know. But there is no evidence the tax cuts stimulated it either because there is no way to do a controlled test to say for sure.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20k in real terms.

And what happened after early 2007.

[screener]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Apparently not much in your world, as you really are asleep, and obviously unaware of what's really happening around you.

Mommy's basement, shell, is where he goes and ruminates, chews the cud, adds to his ignore list and thinks that'll show those mean nasty grownups.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Big fan of Zakaria. Good stuff. I've had some epic battles on here over the "spreading democracy to Middle East" crowd 5 or 6 years ago.

Your a big fan of the president's media propaganda arm? Zakaria takes his marching orders from Pennsylvania Ave.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your a big fan of the president's media propaganda arm? Zakaria takes his marching orders from Pennsylvania Ave.

Well Besson, is it your or you're?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

Well Besson, is it your or you're?

Big Mac does not make the same mistakes consistently, and generally writes well.

I'm also starting to think that he doesn't care for liberals.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your a big fan of the president's media propaganda arm? Zakaria takes his marching orders from Pennsylvania Ave.

Since The Future of Freedom came out in, what, 2001? earlier? - I suppose he's been part of Clinton's media arm since the 90s? Or when he was editor of Foreign Affairs was he just Bush's media boy then?

Paranoia: you've got it™

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

And what happened after early 2007.

Democrats took Congress of course.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I mostly agree with you but increasing the tax base or the the value of the tax base requires fundamental changes in competition laws to prevent companies from becoming monopolies or duopolies. As it stands now the slow erosion of competition is driving wages down and removing jobs from the economy that feeds the taxation system. Since we can't turn back time and change the tax policy to see if the 20% increase would have occurred anyways we will never know. But there is no evidence the tax cuts stimulated it either because there is no way to do a controlled test to say for sure.

It's actually quite a well known principle Athens and has been repeated throughout multiple Administrations. The market reacts to an environment it believes is friendly toward it just as the market reacts to an environment it feels is hostile to it. The business community is no different.

Do you have any evidence to bolster the connection between the lack of antitrust laws and rising unemployment or lower wages? It's tempting to get distracted by the large monoliths, but the overwhelming majority of businesses in the US are small businesses. Bad Fed policy impacts them the most including those @ $250k/yr being derided as "the rich" and thrown in the lot with private jet and yacht owners. It is clear that entrepreneurs are attempting to weather what they consider an approaching storm and that comes in the form of sitting on wealth that belongs in the economy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Interesting that if you were to juxtapose this polling with the polling on Obamacare, you'll find a GOP that is actually aligned quite well with the electorate. If there were a repeal of Obamacare in the measure (you know, since we're all of a sudden interested in what the "American people" want) I assure you the GOP would loosen on the "revenue". Love that btw; "revenue". Call it a tax increase OAW, then try your poll again. It also depends of course on where that "revenue" comes from. Not unlike the folks quick to make smoking all, but illegal while complaining they can't get drunk and exploit naked women.

This is why I find it so amusing that GOP Leaders like Eric Cantor and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can get on national TV and blather on with their inane talking points about "The American people .... blah blah blah" and "Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ... blah blah blah". You know national politics has become utterly dysfunctional when people who claim to be speaking for the "American people" can actually keep a straight face when they push a policy that their pollsters are surely telling them is opposed by the vast majority of the public.

Not so fast OAW.

• Forty-eight percent say the federal income taxes they pay are too high, while 45 say they are about right. Only 3 percent say they are too low.
• Polls in late fall 2010 showed the public split on which party could better handle taxes. A new late March-early April 2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows the Republicans with a 2-point advantage on the issue.
• Sixty-eight percent in a new AP-GfK Roper poll said "taxes" are an extremely or very important issue to them, ranking far behind such issues as the economy and gas prices. Forty-seven percent approve of the way President Obama is handling the tax issue, 52 percent disapprove.
• Although Americans' preference was to not extend the Bush tax cut for those making $250,000 or more, the public supported the December tax cut compromise that extended that tax break.

This recent concern for what the American people want is falling on deaf ears I'm afraid. This Administrations' approval rating on the economy is abysmal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I've got a question: If the rich are taxed so disproportionately then how have they continued to amass more and more wealth making the gap between rich and poor ever greater? Seems to me if the government was taking so much of their money they wouldn't continue to get richer.

If the rich getting one more dollar equates to the poor getting one less dollar, your argument would have merit. Otherwise, it's just a tired old talking point and the fact of the matter is that few Administrations have seen a greater rise in this disparity than the current Administration. Apparently, hating cigar-chompers isn't going to do anything for wealth disparity.

Besides, the "poor" in this country are among the wealthiest on the globe.

[Dork.]

Finally, a light at the end of the tunnel! And it's not because of the Gang of Six, the President, anyone in the House, or anyone on this forum. It's because Grover (not that one, besson3c!) finally said something that makes some sense, kind of.

Recall that the whole reason we're in this mess is because the Tea Party Republicans to create any new taxes or raise any taxes at all. They all signed Grover Norquist's pledge to that effect. But now Grover just came out and said that if Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire, that doesn't count as breaking the pledge, because there was no vote in Congress to raise taxes. (To be fair, Norquist is not in favor of this idea, he just said it wouldn't violate the pledge.)

Interesting, huh? Doesn't Uncle Mitch's proposal make much more sense now, because at no time did it involve making the House vote for tax increases? It gave the President the authority on purpose, so the House could keep its pledge. But now that the Bush taxcuts are fair game, expect that to be part of the Grand Compromise (and expect the Tea Party Republicans to claim it was their idea.)

Funny, huh? This whole time we thought that John Boehner was the Speaker of the House! It turns out Grover's pledge has been Speaking for the House all along.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the rich getting one more dollar equates to the poor getting one less dollar, your argument would have merit. Otherwise, it's just a tired old talking point and the fact of the matter is that few Administrations have seen a greater rise in this disparity than the current Administration. Apparently, hating cigar-chompers isn't going to do anything for wealth disparity.

Besides, the "poor" in this country are among the wealthiest on the globe.

Still didn't answer my question. If the rich are taxed so disproportionately, then how do they manage to continue gaining wealth at an exponential rate?

Also, I'm sick of the conservative argument concerning the poor. The poor are ****ing poor, their lives suck, stop trying to paint them as having it made.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Still didn't answer my question. If the rich are taxed so disproportionately, then how do they manage to continue gaining wealth at an exponential rate?

Also, I'm sick of the conservative argument concerning the poor. The poor are ****ing poor, their lives suck, stop trying to paint them as having it made.

Yeah, my neighbor has it tough. He complains about "rich" people all the time. Hasn't worked in a year yet manages to smoke pot each night, owns two cars and a truck, BBQs steaks the size of the grill, has three air conditioners running in this heat and has two remote control helicopters that he plays with for hours on end.

Yep, so TOUGH.

BTW, the rich grow wealth because they are smart with their money, unlike my neighbor.

[sek929]

Ah yes, the old "poor people are all lazy drug addicts because of this one guy I know" argument.

Rich people keep getting richer because they know how to work the system. The worst case scenario is they get caught stealing billions and get a slap on the wrist, while some poor drug addict that steals 20 bucks from 7-11 gets life in prison.

[turtle777]

I'm glad we're not painting with a broad brush here

The reality is, you have rich people that got rich by cheating, and you have rich peopel that got rich by working hard and being smart.
Alas, there are poor lazy people, and poor, hard working people.

What's needed is to close loopholes and gaps, prosecute cheaters, but NOT punish people for working hard and being successful.

-t

[sek929]

Yeah I know I was doing the same thing I chastised Lint for. It just bothers me how many conservatives have the "poor people only have themselves to blame for their condition and that's that" mentality.

Also, to clarify, I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill wealthy people, I'm taking about the ultra-rich. Once you are a billionaire you know how to cheat the system with your eyes closed. I'd also like to see tax loopholes and other exploits closed, while levying harsher penalties for corporate criminals that steal billions.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Yeah I know I was doing the same thing I chastised Lint for. It just bothers me how many conservatives have the "poor people only have themselves to blame for their condition and that's that" mentality.

The "They have it good compared to other countries" gets me. This isn't another country. And I don't think anyone here would trade their current existence for those lazy poor that have it so good.

[sek929]

Bingo, my point exactly.

[nobull]

I will put my animosity aside to address your point about the debt ceiling talks. First and foremost, this country is in deep trouble and it is not because of Bernanke floating money to banks, it is because of years of stupid overspending by gov and the bloat of gov.

The liberal view is to do what they have always done which is push this debt way out in front and years down the road, making it someone else's problem. That is not what we need and that's too bad for bernanke if he is concerned that immediate cuts would slow the economy even further. That is backward thinking. I also do not think taxpayers should bear the brunt of reckless politicians and their spending.

Conservatives do not like engaging in foreign wars. Reagan resisted this and had the sense to withdraw in the face of losses in Beirut. Bush was a moron so we ended up with two massive wars at the hands of Bush I and II which did little but trigger recessions. Wars are expensive.

What about the liberals and the nanny state. The entitlements have grown out of control. Gov has botched them all especially medicare and social security.

‪Milton Friedman - The Social Security Myth‬‏ - YouTube

Government needs to suffer the burden of their spending. Of all the recession, only one group has been spared unemployment. That is the gov worker, the very entity that has caused this overhang needs to now pay. They need to pay on several levels. 1) with job losses like everyone else. 2) with pension systems that are a total abuse of the taxpayer 3) salary reductions and cutbacks of all their special gov perks and exemptions.

The fist must come down hard. It must come down on the hear and now and in the future. Obama is a thick skulled mongrel. None of this sinks in.

Liberals have said that shutting down gov is bad because we will still have to pay for everyone that was sent home and the restart costs. That is the gun to our heads. But we need relief now from this huge gov bloat and overhead. Because this insane growth from both parties is the root cause of these tragic economic recessions.

It is not the private sector or businesses that are flush with cash that owe something to the gov. Its not the tired taxpayer or small business owner that should suffer the brunt of irresponsible politicians.

Bush went nuts and Obama went completely berserk with spending. The liberals tore this country to pieces. Tarp was bad enough but the liberals went crazy. Bush spent like a drunken sailor and Obama to the level of alcohol toxicity. These two back to back azzholes have done huge damage to this nation.

So now it is time for Gov to pay the price, not the citizens. Citizens have already paid enough.

What congress should be doing is eliminating workers and trimming back the military. But with all the talk about debt ceiling, there hasn't been one dime of cut backs. A business heading into a recession would cut heads, fast and furious. But gov workers are unionized so they think they are entitled to jobs for life, big perks for life.

Gov workers need to be laid off, pensions cut, retirement ages raised substantially. We need relief now and in the future. Obama wants to have 4 trillion in cuts 12 years down the road. That isn't even enough to keep up with the interest. Republicans was more cuts at 28 years down the road. Again we need the relief now.

Under bush gov expanded 33% in 8 years, under obama it expanded 33% in two years. Obama is bush on steroids.

I think most here would agree that US bonds are garbage. Nevertheless, a nice default would trigger a bond collapse and sell off. The only rescue would be the Fed to float the losses. So it would make the Fed totally insolvent. But, a default would hang on the neck of exactly who should bear the brunt, the gov itself and the Fed.

As I have said, the only group that has not suffered this recession is the gov employee. Their numbers have expanded as if it was good times at a booming business. How many businesses do you know that increase their labor forces by 33% in two years. Business would have to be incredibly good. But with gov, they don't care. They don't care how deep they send the nation into debt as long as life is comfortable for them. You have lifeguards in California getting paid an average of $250K a year, and some at over $300K.

The insanity deserves a major wakeup call which has not happened since these professional politicians took control. So It may very well be time to shut the whole mess down. But the cuts being talked about are not good enough. Citizens will loses medicare and social security which is the same as blaming them for the reckless politicians that caused this and the politicians have their own plush retirement plan and medical care. So this all needs to come down around obama's alfred E newman ears. He deserves the wrath of this nation. He wanted to campaign in the middle of a recession. Even LBJ knew enough to quit when things got bad.

So maybe some are right, it is a publicity scare but I am telling you that the gov worker and gov needs to bear the brunt. I would push for an immediate cut back of 25% of gov workers both federal state and local. I would cut salaries by 20% with a complete review going forward. Long term cuts are not enough. We need both a massive reduction in gov, including the military presence over the globe, but every worthless program and then we need future cuts.

Bernanke can worry about it but gov contribution to GDP is negligible. It stands as overhead and creates a sinking fund. Taxpayers should not be paying a dime for the reckless conduct of politicians. Let the bond holders eat it. They were stupid enough to believe that treasury bonds were safe while politicians spent like they had lost their minds. Well like good bond holders, sometimes you hold the bag. Gov has lots of land it can sell to pay down its debt. If it were you, that's what you would have to do.

just sayin
doug

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting that if you were to juxtapose this polling with the polling on Obamacare, you'll find a GOP that is actually aligned quite well with the electorate. If there were a repeal of Obamacare in the measure (you know, since we're all of a sudden interested in what the "American people" want) ....


Not so fast OAW .......

Indeed. The polling showed a majority of the population was opposed to Obamacare given the way the question was asked. But additional polling also revealed WHY people opposed it ... and that belies the "government takeover of healthcare" narrative that our good friends on the right so routinely make.

Statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight reviewed various measures of public support for a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, the "public option", in June 2009. The sampled poll results varied between 40% to 83% in support of a government-provided insurance option, with most of the sampled polls showing between 65% and 76% support.,[1] A New York Times/CBS News poll in June 2009 found that Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind a government-run insurance plan. It stated that people think the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector. The poll found that 72% in support of a plan while 20% said they were opposed. Nearly 60% of respondents said that they would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance, and 40% were willing to pay as much as $500 more per year. 56% supported single payer, believing "the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans".

Public opinion on health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in light of the fact that Obamacare = Romneycare = GOP Alternative to Hillarycare .... what we ended up with is a very politically moderate, private insurance oriented health insurance reform. Now the current Tea Party infused GOP is falling all over themselves in opposition to Obamacare to the point where it's bandying about criticisms like "socialist", "death panels", et al. But anyone who has followed politics since the Reagan era can easily see that this is due to A) a dramatic shift to the right in the GOP, B) pure unadulterated partisanship to the point of the GOP opposing policies that it previously espoused since it was being promoted by a Dem, or C) a combination of the two. In any event, my point here is that Obamacare was the only healthcare reform package that could get through the Senate. Even one controlled by Dems. So essentially what we have are three groups of people:

A. Those who oppose Obamacare because they buy into the "government takeover of healthcare" narrative.

B. Those who oppose Obamacare because it didn't go far enough to include either a public option or a single-payer approach.

C. Those who support Obamacare ... grudgingly or otherwise.

Combined Groups A and B outnumber Group C. This is what the simple "Do you approve or disapprove ...?" type of polls routinely reflect. What I take issue with is when GOP politicians like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, et al try to co-opt Group B with their "The American people .... blah blah blah" talking points. They try to make it appear that the majority support their "anti-government" position when they do not.

Which leads me to the larger point. You aptly observe with your "Not so fast ... " portion of your post that polls taken in isolation can reveal seemingly "contradictory" results. And this, my friend, is because so often the questions are phrased in the abstract. Ask anybody from nearly any part of the political spectrum if their taxes are too high and they will likely tell you YES! IMO ... the more accurate way to get the pulse of the American people is to frame the question in terms of choices. That way you get a better sense of values and priorities. That's what those 5 polls reflect in that chart I posted. That's why this debate over "spending reductions vs. increased taxes" can become so tiresome. In the real world it's simply not that black and white.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So in light of the fact that Obamacare = Romneycare = GOP Alternative to Hillarycare .... what we ended up with is a very politically moderate, private insurance oriented health insurance reform.

Sure. And Obama is a centrist, and we have no deficit problem.

-t