Adam Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 If the two sides can't put personal politics aside, we need to put the two sides aside and fire them
Dante Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Is there any limit to this guys douchery? As every day passes Obama's evil becomes apparent. Its him and his party that has put up in this position. Its them who didn't give a **** about a budget for two years. Now they wait until the last minute to create a "crisis" situation. Then use transparent scare tactics. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 If the two sides can't put personal politics aside, we need to put the two sides aside and fire them We are in this situation because we are funding unsustainable programs and over extending ourselves financially. One party wants to stop that root cause while the other wants to bury their heads in the sand to continue the status quo now and push the root cause off to a later date when we are even farther in debt. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Right now every citizen (if split evenly regardless of age/taxable income) would owe 46,178.84. BEFORE interest is ever paid back on a penny of the 14+ trillion dollar debt that we owe as a country. Add in interest and our "per person" share of the debt would skyrocket. This needs to stop.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 Except that won't happen! I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic. Also for all those pundits I always use to hear, in how under clinton the tax rate was at 39% and they would say "look at the economy then, the economy was booming with that higher tax rate!" I would always think to myself, "Who are they fooling?" and then I would remember, "oh yeah, the shmo's". Lets be real here, the economy didnt boom because of the tax rate. The economy was booming because of the enormous internet dot com bubble. With all those massive revenues that were streaming into the economy, we were able to easily absorb those tax rates. Comparing that era to today is just plain ignorant. Also, GG makes a good point, liberals can huff and puff and attempt to justify why the economy isn't doing as well as they had hoped, but at some point you have to look in the mirror and say "you know what? maybe there is some truth to all these regulations, pieces of legislation like Dodd Frank (I fall in this camp btw), ObamaCare and demonizations of those corporate jet owners, CEO's, hedgefund managers (you take your pick of choices), evil rich etc etc and say maybe, just maybe these overreaching (yet well-intended) pieces of regulations and legislations are holding back the economy. So the choice is do you continue to keep supporting the failing policies and sink down along the titanic with them, or just admit that the direction we are heading isn't where we should be going. Of course there is the ultra progressive stance of doubling and tripling down on Obama's policies, and admitting that things arent quite working well but only because the stimulus bill should have been even larger, and that Obamacare should have been even more bold (even though its clear that entitlement spending is part of the problem) or that the Dodd Frank Bill didnt punish Wallstreet enough. Of course this is how those pathetic saps justify Obama's failures, they will support their rigid idealogy to the end and would rather blame Obama's timidness. In any case, we wont be seeing a strong economy under this presidents control. You can take that to the bank. The idea that's its Obama's policies holding back job creation is hysterical. Corporate profits are booming, the fruits of which are staying at the top and not "trickling down" to the consumers. I don't care what the tax rate is, if the economy recovers the budget will of course get better. Why isn't it recovering? We live in a global economy--that point was lost on GG for years--and and no matter what our government does or doesn't do many factors will be out of our governments control. Look what the latest Europo mess with now Italy, stronger US dollar and that hurts many of our companies. China has had to slow growth in the face of inflation--oh no! Hyper inflation!--and that has hurt us, also. And how many jobs simply are not coming back because they are no longer needed? These companies--God bless them, I don't hate corporations at all--are going to of course use CNBC and Fox to bash the government as an excuse for not creating jobs, they don't want to create them, they don't need them! Corporations are doing just fine without these jobs, why should they create jobs they don't need? But people need jobs. So who is to blame? Perhaps no one, but someone has to be blamed. But capitalism is constantly changing and who knows, a new new niche in the market might just open up job oportunities. If not, I really hope we are not heading into permenent situation of over 9% unemployment. That would be a very bad thing and the government would probably have to start making jobs. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html Ut oh! Obama saying Soc Sec checks might be on the block!
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 The idea that's its Obama's policies holding back job creation is hysterical. Corporate profits are booming, the fruits of which are staying at the top and not "trickling down" to the consumers. I don't care what the tax rate is, if the economy recovers the budget will of course get better. Why isn't it recovering? We live in a global economy--that point was lost on GG for years--and and no matter what our government does or doesn't do many factors will be out of our governments control. Look what the latest Europo mess with now Italy, stronger US dollar and that hurts many of our companies. China has had to slow growth in the face of inflation--oh no! Hyper inflation!--and that has hurt us, also. And how many jobs simply are not coming back because they are no longer needed? These companies--God bless them, I don't hate corporations at all--are going to of course use CNBC and Fox to bash the government as an excuse for not creating jobs, they don't want to create them, they don't need them! Corporations are doing just fine without these jobs, why should they create jobs they don't need? But people need jobs. So who is to blame? Perhaps no one, but someone has to be blamed. But capitalism is constantly changing and who knows, a new new niche in the market might just open up job oportunities. If not, I really hope we are not heading into permenent situation of over 9% unemployment. That would be a very bad thing and the government would probably have to start making jobs. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html Ut oh! Obama saying Soc Sec checks might be on the block! Must be nice to live in denial of the obvious.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 Must be nice to live in denial of the obvious. You seem to pull it off well enough
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I think most PPPers are perfectly in touch - spending needs to be cut, taxes need to be raised. It's Congress that's out of touch. Which is exactly what the president proposed...but anything that ivolves raising taxes is "off the table" for Republicans. Even though, many see the need, they also realize that they won their big victory last fall, by making a promise they now have to keep, no matter how much it hurts everyone...sounds a little familiar huh?
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 You seem to pull it off well enough Yes, that's why I'm the one arguing that more of the same policies that haven't worked will do wonders to the economy, despite what I'm hearing first hand from people who are doing the hiring. Please kids, don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. The unicorn is just beyond the horizon.
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Really? Is that what happened last November. Seems to me the party that had their asses handed to them were the ones "out of touch" with this country. We shall see, eryn...you remember 2008? The world was going to change, or so many thought.. Republicans had their moment to make a bold move, but have gotten some power, and are now just going back to their old ways...the Democratic party is a mess...but the Republican party is as dysfunctional as it gets...the party has been hijacked (as is its' history) by the Tea Party...there is no room for reasonable people in that party.
Joe Miner Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 there is no room for reasonable people in that party. Nothing like sweeping generalizations from those who claim to be reasonable.
Adam Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 We are in this situation because we are funding unsustainable programs and over extending ourselves financially. One party wants to stop that root cause while the other wants to bury their heads in the sand to continue the status quo now and push the root cause off to a later date when we are even farther in debt. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Right now every citizen (if split evenly regardless of age/taxable income) would owe 46,178.84. BEFORE interest is ever paid back on a penny of the 14+ trillion dollar debt that we owe as a country. Add in interest and our "per person" share of the debt would skyrocket. This needs to stop. The democrats are for two much spending, but I also recall a republican stating that the deficit doesn't matter. Both sides are a problem
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Can you explain how taxing the job producers even more than they currently pay is going to create more jobs? Perpetuating the urban myth that giving the wealthy tax breaks (it is really "tax spending") somehow creates this class of "job producers", ay? The fact that they are paying less tax than ever, making record profits, while the economy continues to circle the drain means nothig I suppose. More important to save the industry of private jets, than, say, our tanking educational system...and, let me ask, didn't Obama get a ton of **** just a year ago, for extending the Bush tax cuts? Has it helped anything? Did it help anything during Bush's tenure? Obama has really only extended the misery of Bush's fiscal irresponsibilty, and for that, he deserves all the criticism he gets. Lets try something else now? Nothing like sweeping generalizations from those who claim to be reasonable. Hey, I never claimed to be reasonable! I think there are reasonable people in the Republican party, but they are finding out that being adult, or reasonable, isn't going to work. I think John Boehner is reasonable, but is not leading his party in a responsible way, because he hears the Tea Party zealots...Mitt Romney is a reasonabel person, but he is making himself look like an idiot, trying to appease the Tea Party base that he needs to win the candidacy for his party. Edited July 12, 2011 by Buftex
Joe Miner Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Hey, I never claimed to be reasonable! I think there are reasonable people in the Republican party, but they are finding out that being adult, or reasonable, isn't going to work. I think John Boehner is reasonable, but is not leading his party in a responsible way, because he hears the Tea Party zealots...Mitt Romney is a reasonabel person, but he is making himself look like an idiot, trying to appease the Tea Party base that he needs to win the candidacy for his party. So do you really think that the Democrats are being reasonable when they say they aren't accepting any deal that touches Medicare or Social Security? Or they President is being reasonable when he says he won't accept a temporary fix? How are you determining which lines in the sand are reasonable? Everyone is playing the same game of chicken with the debt limit. But apparently some people are playing it reasonably, and some aren't?
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Perpetuating the urban myth that giving the wealthy tax breaks (it is really "tax spending") somehow creates this class of "job producers", ay? The fact that they are paying less tax than ever, making record profits, while the economy continues to circle the drain means nothig I suppose. More important to save the industry of private jets, than, say, our tanking educational system...and, let me ask, didn't Obama get a ton of **** just a year ago, for extending the Bush tax cuts? Has it helped anything? Did it help anything during Bush's tenure? Obama has really only extended the misery of Bush's fiscal irresponsibilty, and for that, he deserves all the criticism he gets. Lets try something else now? Hey, I never claimed to be reasonable! I think there are reasonable people in the Republican party, but they are finding out that being adult, or reasonable, isn't going to work. I think John Boehner is reasonable, but is not leading his party in a responsible way, because he hears the Tea Party zealots...Mitt Romney is a reasonabel person, but he is making himself look like an idiot, trying to appease the Tea Party base that he needs to win the candidacy for his party. I really like the use of the word reasonable. You know what's reasonable? Understanding and accepting math concepts that clearly tell you that wehn you keep spending more than what you earn you will not dig out of the hole. That same math will tell you that the pace of spending far exceeds the pace of taxation, even if you raise the marginal rates on the wealthy to 100%, so that the equation will get to the same place. So if you want to blame the Tea Party for trying to teach America a math lesson, then yes, they are being extremely irresponsible. What we really need is more people like Obama to tell people how to do their jobs better, when he's never had P&L responsibility in his life until his most recent job.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 12, 2011 Author Posted July 12, 2011 I really like the use of the word reasonable. You know what's reasonable? Understanding and accepting math concepts that clearly tell you that wehn you keep spending more than what you earn you will not dig out of the hole. That same math will tell you that the pace of spending far exceeds the pace of taxation, even if you raise the marginal rates on the wealthy to 100%, so that the equation will get to the same place. So if you want to blame the Tea Party for trying to teach America a math lesson, then yes, they are being extremely irresponsible. What we really need is more people like Obama to tell people how to do their jobs better, when he's never had P&L responsibility in his life until his most recent job. Increasing revenue to the government will not help lower the deficit at all. Is that your reasonable point? Because the promise of getting the extra $1 trillion from the super rich is super empty, as the super rich have the resources to ratchet down their income. And your post highlights the stupidity of the current tax policy. When 50% of the population pays no income tax, they're perfectly willing to pass on the costs to the payers, while expecting greater benefits paid for by others. This system is untenable, and no matter how much moralizing you do, the system will go bankrupt because you can only fleece the rich so much. Obama's gambit is purely superficial, and it will not produce the desired tax revenues nor cost savings. But he may have enough gullibles following him around to eek out an election victory. Yet there will still be the unanswered questions of why does unemployment hover at 10% and the economy doesn't grow. Are you paid to sit and write this trashy stuff? So the rich pay all the taxes but won't pay more with a tax increase because they know how to avoid taxes even though they pay all the taxes??? Fleecing the rich, bashing the rich, demonizing the wealthy, shackling business, and on and on. The system will go bankrupt if there isn't enough tax revenue flowing into it to support it. Same as anything else, duh!
GG Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Increasing revenue to the government will not help lower the deficit at all. Is that your reasonable point? Are you paid to sit and write this trashy stuff? So the rich pay all the taxes but won't pay more with a tax increase because they know how to avoid taxes even though they pay all the taxes??? Fleecing the rich, bashing the rich, demonizing the wealthy, shackling business, and on and on. The system will go bankrupt if there isn't enough tax revenue flowing into it to support it. Same as anything else, duh! Hey you're getting somewhere. The point is that hoping to raise an additional $1 trillion in taxes from the class that already pays an overwhelming share of taxes is a pipe dream, because that additional taxation will come out of someone else's hide, whether it's a further drop in the economy or through more layoffs. The math isn't hard, you cannot have a sustainable tax revenue base if you're overly reliant on one segment, especially when that segment has the ability to shift income. Why do you think tax revenues dropped much faster than the decline in the economy? No matter how much you wish for the economy to improve, it will not happen until Obama is either out of the White House or he has an epiphany of Clintonian proportions. ps - and I wrote the above before seeing Mitch McConnell's comments. Edited July 12, 2011 by GG
finknottle Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 The idea that's its Obama's policies holding back job creation is hysterical. Corporate profits are booming, the fruits of which are staying at the top and not "trickling down" to the consumers. : I think I see the source of your confusion. Corporate profits are supposed to go to shareholders and owners, not consumers.
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 So do you really think that the Democrats are being reasonable when they say they aren't accepting any deal that touches Medicare or Social Security?Or they President is being reasonable when he says he won't accept a temporary fix? How are you determining which lines in the sand are reasonable? Everyone is playing the same game of chicken with the debt limit. But apparently some people are playing it reasonably, and some aren't? Apparently, you didn't read up on the latest "grand plan" that Obama and Boehner agreed upon, before Boehner backed off.
finknottle Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Perpetuating the urban myth that giving the wealthy tax breaks (it is really "tax spending") somehow creates this class of "job producers", ay? The fact that they are paying less tax than ever, making record profits, while the economy continues to circle the drain means nothig I suppose. More important to save the industry of private jets, than, say, our tanking educational system...and, let me ask, didn't Obama get a ton of **** just a year ago, for extending the Bush tax cuts? Has it helped anything? Did it help anything during Bush's tenure? : Bush faced the dot-com bubble followed by the 9-11 attacks, and the accompanying uncertaintity. How can you be so sure that the Bush tax cuts didn't prevent a collapse of the economy? You know, create or save millions of jobs? Edited July 12, 2011 by finknottle
Adam Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Bush faced the dot-com bubble followed by the 9-11 attacks, and the accompanying uncertaintity. How can you be so sure that the Bush tax cuts didn't prevent a collapse of the economy? You know, create or save millions of jobs? Nobody knows or cares. Everybody sees such events through their own partisan glasses
Recommended Posts