Users who Dugg This
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
MediaSight
13123 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
Mik Wilker
1448 Followers
NotifyNeal
10141 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
brookedunneDec 10, 2010
So if the government kindly decides not to take more of your money, that's what passes for a tax cut?
The economic recovery has been endangered for months over uncertainty about what exactly is going to happen to personal and capital gains rates.
Uncertainty = slower job growth.
It ain't exactly rocket science.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2010
Economics and progressive-ism are at polar opposites. Unless the goal is to destroy economies atleast.
PyriteGenieDec 10, 2010
I see someone is familiar with Cloward-Piven.
caramba421Dec 10, 2010
Progress and conservatism are at polar opposites. By definition.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2010
I'm quite fine with that fact, I want to be on the polar opposite of economy destroying.
JewstinDec 11, 2010
concervatives - micro econ Liberals - macro economics
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
... what?
sanmanDec 11, 2010
@darkened, I notice that people are digging you down for saying that you want to be the opposite of economy-destroying
shows how inverted the common sense is here on diggComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaDec 11, 2010
He is being buried as anti-progressive and associating it with destroying the economy.
Reading is comprehension.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
I've gotten used to it.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
@usarugula,
his comment stated that regardless of progressivism and conservatism being polar opposites, he wants to not be on the side of destroying the economy
the thing here is that progressivism is a self-declared label, and hews to a set of policies which may not be about progress at all
when leftists consistently wreck economies they manage, one has to wonder why they consider this progressComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
demdudeDec 12, 2010
So, um, for the past 30 years, who raised the national debt and who lowered it? I'm very sorry, but these are hard facts, and the facts are - republicans ALWAYS raised the national debt by huge amounts, and democrats mostly lowered it. Clinton actually managed to lower spending by massive amounts.
demdudeDec 12, 2010
And here's a chart that shows it to you by the numbers: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fdj4jkkxWMg/Sex4nANiTWI/AAAAAAAAAPE/oseHGqQo9e8/s1600-h/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Please, PLEASE explain to me how what you just said is supposed to make any sense whatsoever.
sanmanDec 12, 2010
@demdude,
you claim Clinton lowered the debt, when all he did was to exchange long term debt for short term debt, which only made the balance of payments situation worse
another thing, Clinton got to surf the fruits of the economic austerity period under George Bush Sr.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
@demdude
You really should take a look at the US Treasury website before you keep posting. The national debt has not gone down for decades. Not even under Clinton. What you are looking at is the deficit, and you are failing to include information regarding the Congress, which controls the purse strings, and Obama, who has also set new records.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
It's sad @sanman and @bobcat that liberals are so insistent to ignore reality. Every single liberal I explain that Clinton merely used accounting tricks to get rid of the DEFICIT they blank out. It's just incomprehensible to them to understand their policies have nearly destroyed our great nation.
When the bill came due for that costs that Clinton threw into the future George W either had 2 choices, raise taxes to pay for the sins of Clinton and take the blame for it or to put it on the deficit. George W choose the blatantly obviously politician decision.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
@demdude that chart is about the national DEFICIT, not national debt. Major major difference. Clearly whoever made that chart is as stupid as you are.
Also what's funny about the commentary on the chart is that it also doesn't show which party controlled the house of representatives since it's the house of representatives that control the purse strings of the US.
linuxpersonDec 13, 2010
Presidents don't create budgets, Congress does.
So demdude, if you are claiming Clinton lowered the national debt, which he didn't according to the US Treasury, then you must be referring to the Republican controlled Congress.
JustSayNoPartyDec 13, 2010
Yes, that's why. It couldn't be that he's misguided if he thinks conservatives=strong economy; liberals=weak economy.
demdudeDec 13, 2010
Of course I meant deficit, I didn't confuse the concepts, I just confused the words. English isn't my native language.
@ darkened
"@demdude that chart is about the national DEFICIT, not national debt. Major major difference. Clearly whoever made that chart is as stupid as you are."
First off, let me preface this by saying: f**k you.
Then, please work on your reading comprehension. The chart clearly says "INCREASES in the NATIONAL DEBT". What about that is factually incorrect? Nothing.
Now to the point of congress - so congress is in charge of the budget and congress is pretty much always controlled by the party that doesn't have a president in office. So what you are saying is - a democratic president is good for the deficit?
And then you start contradicting yourselves: Congress is in charge of the budget, but when the deficit was way down during Clinton's presidency, it was just his clever accounting? So congress controlled the budget, Clinton controlled the accounting.
Congress must've done well because it was in republican control, but Clinton had to make it look good in accounting? What is it now, make up your f**king minds!
novenatorDec 10, 2010
Polar opposites? Like the historical fact that fiscal conservatives balloon the deficit? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fdj4jkkxWMg/Sex4nANiTWI/AAAAAAAAAPE/oseHGqQo9e8/s1600-h/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Polar opposites? For instance creating 93% of the national deb http://reaganbushdebt.org/
Polar opposites, as in fighting against a $1 trillion spending bill that will not create jobs and balloon the deficit even higher simply to make the rich richer? http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/07/circulate_this_1.html
Polar opposites you say. You make no sense.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2010
Firstly, I will call a kettle black when it is. There has been very many disappointing politicians that claimed they were fiscally conservative when it was a blatant lie (George W being one of them.)
Secondly, in regards to the "1 trillion dollar spending bill" the only reason it's a trillion dollars is because of the democrats. If it was purely CURRENT republican responsibility it would be the reduction of revenue by an estimated 700 billion over 10 years, so 70 billion a year on average.
I am absolutely for this. We can cut 70 billion dollars out of the Federal budget permanently and this January and the tax cuts are paid for, forever. If the next House won't do that, I'll be voting for a new House right again.
Regardless about talking about what if's, let's talk about what's currently happening. I am not pleased with this bill but this is worth the compromise on to get democratic support and to make sure it gets down BEFORE January. The cost of letting this languish to be down perfect next year will far exceed the cost if we can get it done now.
Honestly, I hope they pass it in it's current form and then come January they defund all of the parts of it that require money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JewstinDec 11, 2010
watch this video, its about more or less about Putin but the beggining is about the fall of the russian economic system and the idea of the rich running everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4PhwOz6HOc
its made by CBC which is the biggest canadian news broadcaster
sanmanDec 11, 2010
that's why socialism is a bad thing
80+ years of state-run socialism has badly weakened Russian private enterprise and entrepreneurialism
JewstinDec 11, 2010
did you watch the video where it explained, how the rich baught up everything, and how the middle class didnt benifit at all, infact unemployment went up to a stagering 40% after that, socialism worked really well for them, the rich owning everything and running the government didnt
sanmanDec 12, 2010
you can see natural entrepreneurialism had been suppressed by many decades of socialist misrule
JewstinDec 12, 2010
capitalim and socialim have nothig to do with how sucessful a counry is. infact most succesful country's have a balanced mix between capitalism and socialism. Its the investments a country makes that control how successful it is going to be. greed and corruption is what brings a countrys down, i.e. rich busines men who hold 90% of a countries money, who bribe and corrupt politicians into doing their bidding.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
@Jewstin those rich businessmen who hold 90% of the USA's money are something like the top 60-70% of our country. I'm quite fine with that. A 30% figure of people who are just not capable of being successful due to their own actions is reality.
vortz83Dec 12, 2010
Would be nice if more people thought like this, too bad most people just run with the herd of either left or right...
miklkitDec 12, 2010
You are un-believable. The numbers are all against you. This whole deficit is your baby and you policies will only make it bigger.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
yurmutha412Dec 11, 2010
Your graph shows that the Democrat Presidents (note the houses tend to be the opposite party) spent 25 percent of the national debt, not 7 percent as your other looney article states. The 3 trillion from the Obama administration so far was omitted which makes it more like 70 percent. Even according to Paul Krugman real revenue grew during the Reagan administration by 18 percent, so it was increases in spending which caused the debt increase.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
The Bush tax cuts went too far, as well as the middle class tax cuts of the Obama administration, which will cost 3 trillion over the next 10 years. Both need to be gotten rid of eventually, but the economy is too far in the dumps to mess with it at present. Even rolling back current taxes, we'll need changes in social programs and military to balance the budget.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 11, 2010
Presidents submit budgets to congress, and there are rarely enough votes to enact any substantial changes. For instance when Reagan was president, every budget proposal he submitted was trimmed by a Democratic Congress, so the fault of huge deficits ultimately is with the executive branch under fiscal conservatives.
The second link is actually very well sourced. Just follow the link inside that describes how the figures were arrived at.
I certainly agree that the Bush tax cuts (both packages) went too far though, and ballooned the deficit. The Obama-GOP tax scheme will do the same.
yurmutha412Dec 11, 2010
Reagan sharply increased military spending which goes with the territory of Republicans, unfortunately. Get real on the deficit. It's impossibly funny and obviously the spending before the graph you posted would be a pittance because of inflation. Even leaving out Obama, it's hilarious. Obviously, with inflation, whoever comes last is going to do worse. In two more years, it will probably be even up. Liberals are funny. The middle class tax cut by the Democrats is much more costly than the capital gains tax decrease so stop pretending it's the Republicans that are the big spenders, and Obama wants them to be permanent which is financially insane. The health care bill is already costing more than proposed and the extended Medicaid hasn't kicked in yet. The health care insurance inflation rate has also increased but that doesn't affect the deficit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
Novenator, Marxism doesn't work. 100 years of trying and it ALWAYS fails. Give it up. I know you don't tolerate others beliefs but you really need to sit down and think. You are wrong. Everybody is trying to tell you that but you just arrogantly hold your nose up in the air and ignore them. You think all these Diggers are dumb. Stop your madness. Get help. I bet your problem started in your childhood. Most adult liberals will admit that they had a hard childhood. I'm asking you to stop taking it out on others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DavidBDec 11, 2010
Marxism and socialism are two completely different things, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Some socialism does work, hence why you have firefighters, police, military, etc... unfortunately the US is so paranoid about socialism that it's believed that any social program that's for the common good, and would reduce the deficit would turn the US into the USSR. The best example would be universal health care, witch would do away with medicaid and medicare, make health-care more streamlined, efficient, and cheaper. the US has been trying privatized healthcare, and just like trickle down economics it does not work.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
The US has been trying a ridiculous system of government manipulated private health care, not just private health care. If you really think anything the government does would be "streamlined, efficient, and cheaper" then I have a bridge to sell you.
user500Dec 11, 2010
fortunately we have "darkened" to prove one again Republicanism and stupidity are interchangeable.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
just say that you want to dip your hands into other peoples' pockets to take their money from them
you didn't earn that money, so why do you deserve it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
George Soros told them capitalism isn't fair to them.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
the filthy rich Soros seems to be quite a capitalist himself
why doesn't he just give all his money to charity, if he's so pro-poor?
nah, that would require personal sacrifice, and his kind are all about getting others to pony up moneyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
Exactly, that right there is progressive-ism in a nut shell. What's good for everyone else is good, but I'm special and shouldn't be included in those rules.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
You must be an anarchist. There is no other explanation for your constant me me me attitude unless you are merely a sociopath.
What this is about is reducing the deficit. We all benefit from this. When the water rises, we all rise with it.
Warren Buffet and George Soros and Bill Gates all have one thing in common besides a boatload of money. They want their taxes raised.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
Why do they need their taxes raised to get them to pay their fair share? Why don't they just do it on their own?
JustSayNoPartyDec 13, 2010
So, clearly you watch a fair amount of Fox with your distaste for Soros. But most of your comments do not reflect a well 'exercised' mind. No, Democrat does not equal 'economy destroyer.' Neither does Republican. And no, this is not just about 'dipping in to other people's pockets'. It's called taxation and the argument is about what is fair.
It's just the false perception that one party is so much better than the other. I'd say it's better to not 'join' either team. As soon as you do, all your views will be biased through a desire to have one side or the other 'lose'.
cosmicsurferDec 12, 2010
Typical defensive denial and deflection...".But George Soros!!!!!, wha, wha--aa--a--a"
The only wealthy liberal they can even name and that is only because it's fed to them by FOX. (interesting since liberals are also supposed to be synonymous to wealthy elitists)
Give it a break....Soros has done more good for the world than most and actually practices what he preaches...unlike the Pauls, the Cantors, Boehners, Bennets, Cheney's, Bush's....
novenatorDec 10, 2010
First of all, it is not really your money in the first place, you have to look at your net, not gross income. Taxes are a reality, and no amount of whining will get rid of them...unless you start whoring yourself out to some Monocan Prince or Princess.
You phrase it as if any tax is theft, yet you are not a conscientious objector when it comes to enjoying all of the things that those tax dollars buy (public roads, public parks, public police, partially public funded internet, partially public funded gasoline, etc, etc. etc.). Go ahead, stop paying any taxes and stop using these things. Get a cabin out in the woods somewhere and live off the grid. Chop your own wood, spear your own meat, see how you like that (actually, that sounds pretty idyllic honestly).
There is no "uncertainty" over what tax levels are doing, that is s very transparent excuse for corporate greed and deliberate sabotage of the economy by conservatives, who hate Obama more than they love America. Taxes will be restored to their normal levels for everyone, then we will revisit this next year. The Obama-GOP tax scheme will not survive a Senatorial filibuster.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2010
And that right there is fundamentally the problem. You should be taxed based on consumption. Not abstract concepts such as income. It's completely asinine that taxes target your income instead of your consumption.
You should always be entitled to the fruits of your labor to save and invest for the future. It should not be pillaged by government coffers before it even makes it into your wallet on every single pay check. If taxes were based on consumption when we faced times of economic recession the government would have no choice but to scale back just like people in America have to tighten their belt, so does the government.
The key part to making a FAIR Tax work is the introduction of a balanced budget amendment. This would put the control of the government directly into the hands of the people. It would also mandate the government do it's best to promote business growth since the only way for the government to get more in taxes is to grow our wealth that people consume more then.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 10, 2010
Here are the basic facts, the middle class is being destroyed by policies that favor the rich in this country. The poor have always been screwed, but are just barely hanging on. If the slide towards oligarchy continues, there will be a revolution. That is just fact. The best way to avert this is to enact policies that will stop this through spending programs in the short term, with an eye on leveling the playing field so that literally everyone who works hard, sacrifices, gets educated, and has a bit of luck can succeed in life, not just those born into wealth.
Consumption taxes are poor taxes, and a "Fair" Tax would slash revenue, leaving the only option to kill social security and medicare (as well as a few other skeletal programs). If you want to see hungry, desperate armed mobs in the streets, by all means, keep pushing policies that create the environment for that to happen.
user500Dec 11, 2010
replace the fair tax with a truly far tax. Set the maximum wage at $100,000 and tax at 100% anything above that.
bille3Dec 11, 2010
That is a guarantee to end or severely limit productivity. The "wealthy elite" will simply take their toys and go to a different playground. Do you really think they are going to let you take their hard earned money???Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
That means people will just stop being interested in succeeding. I am very committed to my work and feel in the long run it could make me truly wealthy. But if I had to work with the notion that once I get to $100,000 I can't make any more. Do you know what I'd do?
Stop trying once I got there. And just be concerned with doing the minimum acceptable amount. That would happen across the nation with many of the most skilled positions that have kept our nation prosperous.
iriemeditationDec 12, 2010
darkened (i can't reply to you directly?) your scenario only applies for shallow people who are only motivated by money. believe it or not, some people see a greater good, and strive for more than a paycheck. obviously not you. go chase a coin around the block! LOLComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 12, 2010
"hard earned" he calls it. What is so hard about taking multi-million dollar bonuses to sell out the employees of a company (from raping promised retirements to cutting break time to just cracking the whip) to gain 1/4 of a percent in quarterly profits? This after getting expensive tutors to get them through a private school that costs $150,000 per year because daddy is rich.
Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed or fail based on their own merits.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
"Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed or fail based on their own merits."
That only exists in capitalism. Life is hard, many people fail. Socialism is rewarding those who do not succeed where capitalism rewards those who persevere.
grgt1994Dec 13, 2010
Darkened just pinpointed the reason that soak the rich class warfare policies, as championed by Mr. O'Bama, will never improve everyone's lives. Whatever you punish and tax, you get less of.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
@novenator,
Ohhh, yeah, and how are the middle class being destroyed by the rich? The middle class are being destroyed by the burden of constantly having to carry the poor, who aren't working hard enough to take care of themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DavidBDec 11, 2010
you mean like the poor single mothers who have to work 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet? or the poor who work in gas stations, convenience stores, shopping malls, etc... making minimum wage? yes there are poor people who live off of welfare and are generally sucking on the teat of the taxpayer, however to paint all the poor with one brush like that is not correct.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
You mean to say those nasty rich people made those women into single mothers?
The last time I checked, becoming a single mother wasn't a very good lifestyle choice for making ends meet. That's a possible indicator of why so many single mothers are in poverty.
I'll mention to you that working at a gas station, convenience store, or shopping mall isn't a great career choice if you're interested in a good income.
Just thought I'd share that with you, just for those of you who weren't aware of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferDec 12, 2010
THOSE single mothers weren't necessarily always single or mothers but since free abortion and birth control has become a pariah in the country since 2000 as has real sex education, then women are forced to bear their young after sex while many of the MALES involved (hardly men) just want to tell them tough luck, bye-bye and blow off paying the child support or even taking responsibility....
You have NOTHING to say about women and childbirth until you can give birth so sit down and quit making a complete misogynist ass out of yourself..you don't get a vote on it....
The next time you get impregnated in a rape, then come talk to us
sanmanDec 12, 2010
@cosmicsurfer
BULLs**t - you're telling me that a woman who wants an abortion in the United States can't get one? That's a bunch of crap. That's not the reason for all the single mothers. Anybody in the United States who wants an abortion can get one.
Pumping gas is not a career, unless you like being poor. But guess what, money won't come pouring into your pocket for free. It's better to learn some skills that people are willing to pay money for - the better the skills, the better the pay.
DavidBDec 12, 2010
I agree to a point with sanman; yes it is possible for women to get an abortion if they want one.... and have the money for one. What about women without insurance that covers abortion? Most likely the same women who wouldn't be able to pay for it out of pocket. Yes pumping gas is not a career, but people used to be able to live off of that wage relatively well, now a day's not so much. the point is that wages for the rich have skyrocketed (hence the wage disparity) whilst the wages in middle to lower class (poor people) have remained stagnant.
JewstinDec 11, 2010
noventor, you can argue with these people all you want. but the truth of the matter is they have no concept of economics or history. so its kinda like fighting a loosing battle, You can lay all the facts and articles you want in front of them, and theyll still just hit you with another fox news talking point, all the while telling you that your using liberal talking points.
novenatorDec 12, 2010
Good point. I think I take on the persona of the guy who recites BS with facts more for the spectators though. I've completely given up trying to save any wingnuts at this point, they are dead to me. It's the folks that still have the capacity to reason and think objectively that I try to speak to by proxy now.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
You're telling novenator that when he lays out facts nobody believes him? That's rich. I've brought plenty of black and white facts up to novenator only to have him ignore them and keep spewing the same nonsense that he loves.
For example, any thinking person knows that someone is defined by their actions. Therefore, if someone does not act like a fiscal conservative they are not one even if they claim it. Obvious right? And yet we still find novenator saying things like "Like the historical fact that fiscal conservatives balloon the deficit?". Speaking of giving up on someone, I'm reaching that point with novenator.
JewstinDec 12, 2010
the whole fiscal concervative tea party thing is bulsht, you can cut spendindg all you want, but without tax increases you wont cut down the deficit, you will only create more of one
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=/2010/12/11/nyregion/11nassau.html&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR
this article is on one of the first tea partiers to get into office, and how his state is now broke
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
@Jewstin
Were you responding to me? I'm not sure how that answers what I said or what your point was, that's why I ask. Your link only took me to a log in page for the NY Times, but cutting spending will certainly reduce the deficit.
JewstinDec 12, 2010
they wont decrease the deficit without proper taxation, where the money is used for the cuts is used to pay the deficit. example i can stop spending with a credit card that has alot of debt, but if i dont do somthing to make revenue in order to pay down the deficit, The deficit wil continue to grow because of interest, possibly becoming even bigger due to inflation. The government makes its revenue from taxes, without it making any revenue it will not be able to pay off the deficit.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
Your example would be accurate if you said that you were already paying $100 a month on the credit card. Stopping using the card would then reduce your debt over time. Your example is assuming that there is no revenue to start with, but we already have trillions in revenue so reducing spending below our revenue will result in erasing the deficit and reducing the national debt for the first time in decades.
JewstinDec 12, 2010
my example was implying that without making any money it would make it hard for me to make even the 100$ average, which would probably pay the iterest only. the private sector makes trillions every year yes. but the government makes its revenue off of the taxes it collects through sales taxes and regular payroll taxes. right now your government charges a sales tax, but that probably only goes so far, besides that you right now still have middle class tax cuts happening along with the upper tax bracket cuts, which will only create deficits in the long run.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
I have no idea what you're saying. We have trillions of dollars in tax revenues coming in. That's not going to suddenly change, although it will fluctuate. If nothing is done different with the tax rate and spending is reduced below the trillions we receive in revenue then the deficit will go down. I do not know how to make it more clear.
JewstinDec 13, 2010
so the governmen has trillions of dollars coming in this year alone just from sales taxes?
bobcat7407Dec 13, 2010
Who said it has to be just sales tax? The government makes the majority of its revenue from income taxes. Here's the list if you're interested:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10taxstatscard.pdf
So I'm still not sure what your point is. The revenue that the government had last year is not going to suddenly disappear next year so if spending is cut below that revenue level then the debt will finally begin to go down.
JewstinDec 13, 2010
My point i guess is, if the government has cut everyone personel income tax, like the Tax Cuts for the middle class and the rich where do they collect their revenue from, other than from sales taxes
bobcat7407Dec 13, 2010
Well, you can see from my link the revenue and that is with the tax cuts. It's not like they eliminated income taxes.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
@jewstein the article you linked on NY times shows what happens when you have out of control government spending.
BANKRUPTCY.
In the end, maybe that's a good thing. Nassau goes bankrupt, is able to get rid of it's bad debt. Taxes stay at their current rates and the government will adapt.
Nassau will no longer be able to get substantial amounts of credit and will be required to live within its means instead of borrowing itself to death.
godsbongDec 12, 2010
"If you want to see hungry, desperate armed mobs in the streets, by all means, keep pushing policies that create the environment for that to happen."
Sadly, that part of your comment is coming truer by the day. It may not happen in our parents lifetime, but it very well can in mine. And that is a scary thought.
miklkitDec 11, 2010
We already have consumption taxes, and they are very regressive. They are sales taxes and hit the poor far harder than you rich. Sales taxes are so regressive that the income taxes are indexed in order to level the playing field so that everyone pays about the same overall taxes.
But you already know that and are just playing a rhetorical game.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
Bull s**t. Your taxes should be based on what you consume, poor or rich. The poor consume very little and hence would be taxed almost nonexistentantly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
suppasonicDec 11, 2010
I'm glad to know you are simply just mistaken instead of clearly denying obvious facts. Consumption taxes are horribly regressive; the more income you make, the less percentage of your income you are spending in.
Now, I dont disagree that a consumption tax is superior. A value-added tax system creates the least distortionary effects, less DWL, and most efficiency of most proposed tax system. The key, though, is rebates/subsidies/transfers to the poor, who get screwed by it.
I want to make sure people arguing for the things I support dont make me look bad.
bille3Dec 11, 2010
True. The more a persons makes, the more they spend. Bigger home. More expensive cars, clothes and more dining out. All putting more cash flow into consumer items which is the driving force or our economy. The more money in the hands of the people to go out and spend, the more the economy grows. That dollar will change hands at least 7 times, with the government taking a small bite each time.
When the government takes that dollar out of circulation it not only hurts the economy, it reduces the revenue the government gets from taking those little bites.
The way for "Johnny Lunchbucket" to have money to spend is for him to have a job. His job in the private sector comes from someone creating that job. That someone has money and wants to build or expand their business and grow. They require the efforts of "Johnny Lunchbucket" to do that.
It is not the purpose of government to provide jobs. Government must take money out of the private sector to provide a government job. Government jobs and retirements are a major contributor to the budget deficit.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
@suppasonic why should you be taxed on the money you choose to save or invest!
Why should investing be taxed?!? It's f**king ridiculous. Let's encourage investing and stop capital gains! With the FAIR Tax it would affect corporations the same way, it would stop the craziness of the tax code and be based on what they consume. The companies that are service organizations would then pay very little tax which would leave all of the remaining money to be distributed to the employees, owners/shareholders.
Those very same people are very likely to invest also, which gives other companies more opportunity for growth. It'd be a vicious cycle... of growth!
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
One more reason this is sound policy. Right now there is something like 1 trillion dollars of cash sitting in accounts almost idle. Primarily due to the fear and uncertainty in the market. (I find it laughable when people try to claim that the uncertainty arguments are invalid and this is how much money isn't being invested)
Restructuring the tax system the way I've outlined gives you absolutely no incentive to just sit on your money when you have far better prospects to make more money whether by spending it directly inside the companies or investing in the market. (Companies usually do this by buying bonds from other companies thereby letting other companies grow in exchange for the interest which gives a steady income source for them).
JewstinDec 12, 2010
leave the private sector to the private buisiness's, with a few regulations, than you create a public sector through taxes to decrease costs on products that are better distributed in big pools rather than multiple small pools, not to mention it insures that everyone pays for things that you cant neccesarily charge people to use, like roads, parks, law enforcement, fire, millitary and even a public option healthcare system.
r0am3rDec 11, 2010
"...it is not really your money in the first place." I don't even know where to begin! This convoluted thinking is why your beloved liberal representatives are losing their jobs in January. What I earn is MY money, NOT YOURS!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorDec 11, 2010
If you chop down 100 trees in the wilderness, that is your wealth. If you chop down 100 trees in today's society, the tax man will take 0-35% of the trees that are left over after your corporate masters take their share. Thus, in the ancient system, that IS your money, in the current system, you only have 0.01 trees for every 100 you cut down, and the government takes a portion of that. You are looking at the wrong enemy.
r0am3rDec 11, 2010
I have it wrong? The government works for me! I don't work to make the government larger, I work for me and me alone. My tax is to support the roads I drive on and military I depend on. That is the biggest difference between us - you think government is there to act as your master. My master is neither a corporate entity or an intrusive government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DavidBDec 12, 2010
how about police, firefighters, medicare, national parks, food and drug administration, FBI, NSA, etc... seriously the list is loooong. everything costs money, and taxes pay for it.... simple.
r0am3rDec 12, 2010
@DavidB - you hit the nail on the head. The list to TOO long and that is where the problem is. We need to cut down on all of the social programs and limit the size of the government. The framers never envisioned this bloated bureaucracy and always wanted a smaller more agile government. Yes, it is that simple.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
Police and Firefighters = local
NSA, FBI should see major cut backs or entire closures.
FDA, absolutely should be closed. Repeal corporate personhood and let companies get prosecuted when they hurt people. Let independent organizations exist for vetting drugs, similar to Unified Labs do for electronics.
National parks, worthy use of Federal money
Medicare, worthy use of Federal however there needs to be changes to the program to prevent it going bankrupt. Like Rand Paul stated, the creation of a $2000 deductible for Medicare will need to happen before the next generations enter Medicare age.
atomic1fireDec 12, 2010
the government also makes money off all the transitions that take place between the trees being cut down and the trees being sold.
That gas that went into carrying those trees to wherever they were going.
That's sales tax.
the supplies and tools being bought to take down the trees.
That's also sales tax.
I'm sure the government also makes money off the income tax, and the property tax, because someone obviously owns that land, and if you have employees, you have to pay them.
they might also want healthcare, and other benefits and if they are unionized, that's another contract you will have to pay for.
and if the government decides to increase minimum wage, and if you have employees on minumum wage, you need to pay for that increase in paycheck, or fire some people to save money.
People pay other people to do a job,
if you are paying someone to transport those trees, they are not evil for wanting money, they are just doing a service,
and if you really want to wine about money grubbing, Union's are just as much to blame because there is always someone who wants more then their fair share, and to point the finger like big businesss is always the problem is unfair, because people start businesses to make money.
for every evil big business manager, there is a Melissa G King.
novenatorDec 12, 2010
You're missing the point. The total amount that is taken away by the government via various taxes is pocket change compared to the legitimized theft of the corporation. People need to focus on getting a larger share of what they create with their work from industry, not blame their woes on the government that is (ideally) trying to let them do this (regulations, laws, anti-trust, etc.).
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
"the legitimized theft of the corporation."
f**king insane socialist.
cold0008Dec 12, 2010
You're forgetting the most important benefit of our taxes, a stable society. It's great having money, but allowing people to earn and in some cases giving people what they need to survive is as important to the rich as it is for the poor. Look at things like the kidnappings in mexico to see what happens when the least among us aren't given what they need to survive.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
you expect intellgence andacuracy from politicususa?
youareretardedDec 11, 2010
Were you being ironic on purpose?
lol
hipmanDec 11, 2010
just like your nic, huh?.
jamesthetoadytoadDec 11, 2010
A "service-based economy" leads to "slower job growth". This whole thing is a joke. The US is totally f**ked, they just haven't told you yet. We are being held up by nothing other than debt, and there is a plan to end that very soon.
usarugulaDec 11, 2010
You know what else isn't rocket science? The fact that we owe China a lot of money and we need tax revenue to pay it back.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Freedom isn't free.
user500Dec 11, 2010
its just borrowed.
sanmanDec 11, 2010
it's not freedom, but the welfare state that's caused the US to borrow so much from China
miklkitDec 12, 2010
And just whom created almost all of the debt that China is holding???? Hmmm?
http://reaganbushdebt.org/
cosmicsurferDec 12, 2010
Freedom isn't free. especially when it was sold for a bogus war and to line the pockets of the administration that created it
miklkitDec 12, 2010
That is a very heavy price to pay.
hughesw2Dec 11, 2010
If uncertainty hurts the economy as much you say it does, then allowing all of the tax cuts to expire would be preferable to a temporary extension of any of them. It also meant that leaving the permanent Clinton tax rates in place would have been better for the economy than even getting a 10 year tax cut in the first place under Bush.
It also means that arguing for the repeal of Obamacare or the Wall Street reforms adds to regulatory uncertainty and those are also hurting the economy.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
The uncertainty is bad for the market, ending the Bush tax cuts would be devastating to the market.
It boggles my mind how little liberals take the time to understand even the most basic nature of economics.
Obamacare itself is a giant source of uncertainty because it's 2200 page bill has spawned 4400+ pages of regulations. How are businesses expected to keep up with those changes when the government can't even meet it's own deadlines? They've missed almost every single affordable health care act deadline.
bobcat7407Dec 12, 2010
What do you expect? The proof is out there. The left does not understand basic economics, that's why they think the government can solve everything.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
That was quite an article, it really explains everything that is wrong with the progressive platform and those who buy in it. They just don't understand they're wrong because of ignorance.
bdbrDec 11, 2010
"So if the government kindly decides not to take more of your money, that's what passes for a tax cut?"
No one has decided not to take more of your money. They've just decided to take it later, with interest.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
Only if the tax cuts aren't met with reduced spending which will happen next year.
The tax cuts "price of 700 billion" is over a decade. So each year it's only approximately 70 billion. Also that's not a price, that's an expected amount of reduced REVENUE. There's a huge difference here. Not to mention if the GDP grows the amount of taxes received would actually be higher and the estimated shortfall could be even smaller.
Digressing, I am absolutely for the government not taking an additional $70 billion dollars a year more FROM Americans for it to use how it deems is better.
bdbrDec 11, 2010
I agree, but *is* there a concomitant spending reduction planned?
miklkitDec 12, 2010
No. The teabaggers are already trying to redefine earmarks.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
Money that is spent by appropriations committees are not earmarks.
Yet again ear marks mean almost nothing. It's Federal programs and Department Ofs that cost 100s of BILLIONS and into TRILLIONS. True ear marks and even spending that you could try to classify as "ear marked" even though it went through appropriation committees is pocket change.
suppasonicDec 11, 2010
There is no difference between spending increases and tax decreases when talking about the national debt. If the tax cuts are extended, then an equivalent spending cut is necessary as well. I'm sure you agree with this, but raising taxes = cutting spending if we want to reduce the deficit. It certainly is a price. And as has been shown before, taxes on the top marginal rate have no correlation with GDP growth.
For reference, the US last had budget SURPLUSES under the Clinton tax rates.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
There was never a surplus. It was imaginary, just like the housing market. Clinton used accounting tricks to shift debt that was payable to his administration to be brought due in the George W administration.
When the debt came due George W "paid" it by adding it to the deficit.
Get it right.
suppasonicDec 13, 2010
Social security is an off-budget program.
When we talk about the budget, we are talking about whether standard taxes -- most taxes outside of FICA -- paid for things on the budget -- everything outside of the big transfer programs. There was a surplus as tax receipts exceeded budgeted spending. It was only because of higher than expected capital gains thanks tto the tech stock boom, but there was a surplus.
If you want to argue that total government debt increased thanks to the transfer programs, fine, but thats irrelevant to the conversation as we are talking about taxes in reference to government getting a surplus in the budget.
Again, any peer-reviewed public finance article in any reputable journal supporting your claims will shut me up, but I think you'll have trouble with that.
anthopDec 12, 2010
That's true that uncertainty can suppress job and economic growth, but the assumption that taxing business owners and investers less reduces their uncertainty is absolutely illogical and absurd.
It's increased >demand< for businesses, goods, and services that reduces uncertainty. A business owner or investor who >knows< he's sitting on a bunch of untapped demand will enthusiastically spend the money, hire the people, and expand the business to try to capture that market.
Proponents of using supply-side economics as a model for economic stimulus are either stupid, gullible, or willfully deceitful.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
Are you dense? The uncertainty comes from the fact businesses can't even predict their cashflow because they don't know what their taxes will be!
Raising taxes will cause people to invest less, hire less people and just generally hurt the economy in every way possible.
You seem to ignore this isn't about CUTTING taxes it's about NOT RAISING TAXES.
When you couple that with legislation like the Affordable healthcare act that comes with 1000s of pages of regulations and taxes. This has an undeniable and pronounced negative affect on our economy.
atomic1fireDec 13, 2010
who says that decreasing taxes won't increase >demand<
people tend to buy more when they have money.
consider looking at the amount of money people have and spend when they get a tax rebate.
it may not be perfect, but I figure that people tend to save purchases for when they can actually afford it.
withearsDec 12, 2010
The republicans define ANYTHING that creates more tax revenue as a tax increase.
- Allowing businesses to stay open on Sundays - tax increase
- Allowing dog tracks - tax increase
- Extending the hours of selling liquor - tax increase.
It's all about the narrative for the republicans.
withearsDec 12, 2010
Why is this getting dugg down? This is EXACTLY what the republicans said and did when claiming that Bill Clinton raised taxes 135 (or so) times as Governor in Arkansas.
This is a fact. It is indisputable.
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
Crackpots.
adamreedericksoDec 13, 2010
Where did this "uncertainty" meme get started? It's laughable! As though any other point in economic history everyone was so certain what the future held. The real way to solve this economic mess is to invent better crystal balls, apparently.
Closed AccountDec 11, 2010
Neither will raising them...which is what it actually would be. (this is NOT a cut.)
No nation has EVER taxed its way out of a recession.
jschrode42Dec 11, 2010
lol please explain this comment. Ya taxes alone won't get you out of a recession, but gov't spending on infrastructure and job creation is basically the only way any nation has EVER exited a recession. WWII got the world out of it's single biggest recession due to the money govt's spent on their military's.
Where do you think the funds for these infrastructure projects come from? The economy is like an ecosystem, it relies on all it's parts to be healthy to survive. If half the population is too poor to spend any money, everyone suffers. Higher taxes on the richest 1% of Americans (who control a disgusting amount of the nations wealth), would ease the burden on the rest of the nation's taxpayers for the inevitable gov't stimulus that is imperative for the nation's economy.
suppasonicDec 11, 2010
top marginal tax rates have almost no correlation with gdp growth:
http://img.slate.com/media/86/marginalGrowth.jpg
ncmusicDec 11, 2010
It's an extension of a temporary tax cut, since the rate isn't permanent. if they were so worried about raising taxes why didn't they make them permanent....because they would have had to balance the budget to do it. So you end up with these bulls**t games about raising taxes, you know who raised them Republicans when they didn't make the cuts permanent. They were planned to go up, by the folks that passed the bill.
ScienceTrumpsReligionDec 11, 2010
dont feed the troll!
winnybibby is a known troll... former names include chileanminer and regulatorguy
miklkitDec 12, 2010
Ahh. Sorry to hear that.
ferretmanDec 11, 2010
Boy he flips around a lot doesn't he?
zlorptronDec 11, 2010
I libertied my pants!
davidtcDec 11, 2010
Obama admitted that? Wasn't he always saying that tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs?
Submit this when Bush or a top GOP'er admits it.
Iono12345Dec 11, 2010
Ahhhh, yeah of course he admits this it is his parties line and now I would say he is right, as most rich are squirreling their money away and cutting back as the future looks bleak.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
masterjtp01Dec 11, 2010
Then why do it Obama, why do it?!
paranor01Dec 11, 2010
RTFA
chilidogsDec 11, 2010
Consumption and demand create jobs. If you give someone who already has a s**t load of money more money they won't buy anything. If they wanted or needed anything they would have already purchased it.
Have you ever noticed that cons only bitch about income taxes and not payroll taxes? It's the same principle but one would benefit the working class.
themonkmanDec 11, 2010
This is why trickle down economics is so incredibly stupid. Markets rise and fall based off of consumption and spending of the majority of those in the economy; the middle class. You put more money in their pocket and they will spend it, which makes the companies who produce the products more money and adds more value to their investments, which in turn creates more jobs, more opportunities for small business to spring up around the demand, which in turn creates even more jobs and makes the business owners even more wealthy.
I don't understand how this concept escapes people. Taxes are a necessary evil. As a country, we pay less taxes than nearly everyone else. The Federal Gov't does need to be trimmed and made more efficient. No argument there...but those who say "It's MY money" fails to understand how much in public services they actually consume. They also fail to understand their duty as American citizens that a fraction of what they make goes to the greater good.
We will never have a tax free society. Live with it. Be thankful you don't pay $7 per gallon of gas like a lot of other countries, or 40-50% of your income to taxes, either.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
Excellent post. :0)
The economy does not get better when the money trickles down like rain, it gets better when all boats rise with the tide.
salvysahagunDec 12, 2010
no economy gets better when things are produced not consumed.
stop reading that keynsean s**t
and pick a up a copy of the road to serfdom.
salvysahagunDec 12, 2010
STOP LISTENING TO THAT FDR BULLS**T!!!!
PRODUCTION > CONSUMPTION
themonkmanDec 13, 2010
What use is producing things if nobody is consuming them?
The velocity of which currency is exchanged is what adds strength to the economy. Therefore a dollar squandered and not put into use is nearly useless to economic health. If you put more money in the hands of the middle class, it's proven that the dollar's velocity increases exponentially because the average person does not hold onto the money for very long. Plus figure in that there are far more middle class than wealthy individuals and the factor increases ever more for the dollars velocity.
Trickle down economic fails because it does not figure in how fast currency exchanges hands. When a majority of a countries wealth is held in long term investments by the wealthy, the velocity of the dollar is retarded. Most middle class people have 3% or less of their income tied into such investments, meaning that it goes rapidly back into the economy. This is basic growth economics, people. It's not rocket science.
salvysahagunDec 13, 2010
Production is more important than consumption because it is what directly employees people and creates consumption.
You are paying people to build once the employee's are paid then they'll consume.
If you focus on consumption and spending their is no cycle.
so if you stimulate consumption it will run out and production will come to a hault
themonkmanDec 14, 2010
Well let me put this past you: which is easier to stimulate, consumption on current available products or production of new products? I would wholeheartedly say consumption on current products. That is easily done by putting more money directly in the hands of consumers. That can come by easing of taxes or by decline of prices. Price decline is bad for the producers, because it causes them to ship production to cheaper production centers which usually causes reduction in quality. It also causes offshoring of jobs. So the easiest way is by easing taxes on consumers.
Creating more production in an environment is a long and costly venture. It takes time to develop, test, and bring to market. All of these things cost vast amounts of capital. There are already plenty of great products on the market right now and few companies have had the complaint that they cannot maintain their production to satisfy demand. The reason is that there is little demand. The financial status of the masses is one thing that drives demand, and the majority of the masses are the middle class. Humans are greedy little buggers and will sop up everything the market has to offer if it has the money to do so. Without the money, and the related demand, there is a stale or failing market. Companies are also much more leveraged to handle the risk of a stagnate market, while consumers are typically do not.
Put money in the masses pocket and they will buy, which will put money into the company to produce more new products. Production cannot come before demand, and demand is driven by consumers. So you can easily see that Consumption > Production and not vice versa.
Focus on the financial concerns of the consumers will make them more inclined to consume and the cycle works perfectly. You cannot expect people to buy when there is no money to allow that consumption. WIth the added consumption of those who are currently employed (which is at least 92%) it will cause a pressure on the companies to produce more and as such hire more people as they grow. The tree cannot come before the seed. You grow at the base, and that is the consumer.
salvysahagunDec 15, 2010
Hear is whats wrong with your theory. More people are employed by production firms than retail firms.
Therefore production is the priority.
Was their a direct demand for the light bulb? PC? Automobile? Airplane?
Even Steve Jobs said he made the macintosh based upon his desires not the consumers.
If the government lowerd taxes on factories and their owners as well as all production firms. This recession would be over with in the year.
You can't stimulate consumption bc with stimulous you are taking from one sector to another which does nothing to the economy as a whole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
retroscifigeekDec 11, 2010
If they won't create jobs then what is the point again?
chilidogsDec 11, 2010
Giving tax cuts to the rich does not create jobs. There is no reason to do it. That was my point.
Cutting payroll taxes and putting money in the hands of the poor and working class is money that will actually be spent which will create demand and finally jobs.
bille3Dec 11, 2010
Payroll taxes are paid by the employer and employee. So yes you are still giving a tax cut to the rich. And if that rich employer now has more money, he can hire another unemployed Johnny Lunchbucket and grow his business even more.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
But he won't. The money from a tax cut is not nearly enough to hire another worker. Plus, why would he? His business will not have better sales. His customer base will remain the same, or more likely, continue to shrink as less and less Joe Sixpacks can afford to buy his product because all of the money is tied up in overseas investments.
craigreedDec 11, 2010
It's about letting the babies have their bottle so they can get on with running the country without giving up on the rest of the stuff unemployment benefits etc which do create economic growth in the bill and hopefully getting us some time to do stuff like DADT and the Dream Act in the lame duck session.
The 2010 election has given Republicans this idea that they can do any crazy ass thing they like and get away with it, if Democrats choose an uncompromising game of chicken the only thing that will happen is Republicans will let all the tax cuts expire along with unemployment benefits because they would probably just see it as an issue that they could run on in 2012 "Obama gave use the biggest tax increases ever." you can see their talking points before the election season even begins.
bdbrDec 11, 2010
They do it because it increases tax revenue. Historically, the rich have NOT paid more income tax just because their marginal rate was raised, but they do make lower incomes. Lower incomes mean less income to tax, and even at the higher rate often means less tax revenue. Plus they have less income to invest next year, and generate more tax revenue.
Now, most this is driven by poor governance. The reason they can get away with this is lots of tax loopholes & shelters created by the lawmakers. To make matters worse, the lawmakers just spend more when the tax revenues go up, and that worsens the debt. The tax shelters don't encourage domestic jobs, and in some cases encourage moving jobs offshore.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
Historically, as the tax rates have gone down so have the number of loopholes.
Do you remember the British invasion of the sixties? You had these British rock bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Animals popping up and becoming instant millionaires. They were basically just poor rockers wanting to party. But the taxes of the time drove them out of England because the system was designed around mature businesses, not some punks.
The Beatles smartened up first and incorporated, and were able to continue living and prospering in England. The other groups quickly followed suit and moved back to merrie olde England.
The point is that taxes on the richest are now at obscenely low levels compared to their total income, which is sheltered from taxation. And they are not planning on spending their money here anyway. It is scheduled to be spent in Brazil, India, and China when someone else does the heavy lifting and gets our economy working again.
glassagateDec 11, 2010
Conditional: they can only get tax breaks if they create
reasonable jobs for the middle class, and only after the unemployment
rate goes down. Sounds fair.
Tax the rich. They can afford to have their rates go up. They aren't
going to be put into a situation where they might have to loose
their house, or will not be able to feed their family.
Bottom line: they can afford to be taxed, while the middle
and lower class can't.
bille3Dec 11, 2010
In the past there was a movement to tax the rich by way of the luxury tax. A tax on luxury items like Yachts. When it went into effect, the rich took their Yacht buying to foreign countries. The American luxury craft industry took a major hit and laid of a lot of workers. The whole plan backfired, foreign businesses saw increased sales and income while middle class workers found themselves without a job. Government did not get the revenue it had counted on and had already begun spending.
Going after the rich and their money might make you feel good inside, but that is all you are going to get. They are smarter than you and they are not going to sit around sipping martinis waiting for you to raid their safe.
bdbrDec 11, 2010
You're going to get buried like hell for saying this! It doesn't matter if historical data shows you're correct.
glassagateDec 11, 2010
Well, that is why we need to work with foreign governments
to make some sort of deal so that we can tax them,
even if they go overseas.
Another benefit of a world wide government.
Freedom isn't free. They need to pay their share.
It's because of the US system that they are able
to live as they do.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
How many people are rich enough to afford a luxury yacht? Those people already have their money offshored and are moving their jobs offshore.
America has one of the lowest tax rates of any large economy. Where are they going to go? The elites have to keep a presence here and they should be taxed like the rest of us.
Halliburton moved their corporate headquarters to Dubai to protect their top officers from possible extradition for criminal actions, but their business operations are centered here. Tax them!
The uber rich do not spend that much here compared to the middle class. Tax them at 32% instead of 17%.
monvalleyDec 11, 2010
Did he really say that? Then, why is he agreeing with it; double talk? Maybe he isn't so smart. And if we start adding up; won't we find that he is doing almost everything that he bashed President Bush for? Well, maybe he isn't so dumb.
user500Dec 11, 2010
if your wondering about your tax dollars at work, here in KY RJ Corman multi millionaire was given 13 million dollars to create 50 temporary jobs fixing up his properties this spring and summer. for the same amount we could have paid 433 people 30,000 to stay home for a year and had money left over. Its good to be rich.
ncmusicDec 11, 2010
I'm not arguing for the cost of the project. But I assume it was more than 50 jobs since some of the money probably went towards tools and supplies for the project.
miklkitDec 12, 2010
But isn't tools tax deductible?
ncmusicDec 12, 2010
I can't decide on the relevance of your question? My point was a company had to make the tools and other supplies so the money goes towards other jobs. It wasn't in some kind of economic vacuum.
theswashbucklerDec 11, 2010
Now, if only Republicans would admit it...
notahackDec 11, 2010
Why do they keep calling it a tax cut? Seems to me Democrats want to raise the tax rate for the rich directly and the rest of us indirectly. No one is talking about giving tax cuts to the rich or anyone else for that matter. Why does every news story whine about tax cuts for the rich? Another case of reframing the terms used or just calling black white? Seems to me the main stream media is cut of the same cloth as congress and just aren't adjusting to the change of American attitude. For enterprises that supposedly make their paychecks from the public purse (ads, subscriptions, etc) isn't that especially inane?
Edit/Delete Message
camelfoeDec 11, 2010
Obama *admits*? What does that mean? Obama is all-knowing and all-powerful? Shouldn't the headline be "Obama thinks..." or "Obama believes..."?
He says this won't create jobs, but it's good for the economy. WTF?
lostinseganetDec 11, 2010
Can't he declare the whole country a disaster area, and send funds to unemployed or what ever?
smithwill81Dec 11, 2010
tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs
Be the creator of his own employment is the solution
bille3Dec 11, 2010
If the "rich" do not create private sector jobs, then who does? It sure as heck is not government.
BHO is doing nothing more than playing on your emotions and fueling the fires of social envy. It keeps your mind off him and congress.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ScienceTrumpsReligionDec 11, 2010
the people who spend money create jobs
if people arent spending money, jobs are not needed to create goods or man stores
the middle and lower classes spend almost all of their earnings... the upper classes spend a fraction of their earnings
so tell me, who creates jobs?
apparently you think its the people who benefit from the jobs
steve8867Dec 11, 2010
He is STILL in office why??
billieocean1985Dec 11, 2010
There are still thousands of new jobs available on http://www.careerDaddy.com.
linuxpersonDec 11, 2010
Federal income taxes are theft, period. Keep on advocating for more theft and wasteful government spending, that will definitely solve all the problems.
Keep on crying on digg, taxes aren't going up. American people 1, digg socialists 0.
chilidogsDec 12, 2010
Again, why income tax? Why are you fine with payroll taxes?
linuxpersonDec 13, 2010
Let me be clear: I think all forms of forced wealth redistribution are morally abhorrent.
That said, Federal income taxes represent the most egregious example of theft because most of what they pay for does not actually benefit the people who are paying them.
Where possible, I refuse to pay Federal income taxes while openly accepting my city income tax bill because much of what the city income taxes fund I actually benefit from. Could the market provide me with better garbage pickup service than the cities abysmal organization? Certainly, but at least I see some type of direct benefit.
chilidogsDec 14, 2010
I think that people benefit indirectly from pretty much everything. I doubt that I will ever need welfare or unemployment but those things contribute to a safe and stable society. Even the guy who walks everywhere needs the roads for his groceries to be delivered to the store. I don't have kids but I still pay for schools and I gain the benefit of an educated and useful next generation of Americans.
The idea that private companies are inherently better than government services is another conservative notion that I take issue with. It suck that your trash service is s**tty but mine is great. That is not a fundamental quality of gov services it is one poorly run department. What people often fail to see is that they are counting the individual failures in government and attributing it to all government run institutions but then rating private industry by a different standard counting only successes and ignoring failures. Here in Texas privatized power was supposed to bring competition and reduce prices but prices have only increased.
relengaDec 11, 2010
As if he has any understanding of economics.
mortventDec 11, 2010
You know it's not the top end that needs the tax cuts to bring things up. It's the lower end.
Companies will not hire people till there is a need for them due to more profit coming though the door. Stores are closing because the profits are gone to the places that sell things the cheapest because the low-middle income consumers are hurting.
Give the rich a tax break and those stores will still close because of no purchases by the majority of the consumers. Trickle down doesn't work, you have to help the bottom to build up the economy again.
When the percentage making over 250k a year get a cut it isn't nearly as helpful as those under 50k a year getting a cut and having a bit more to spend into the economy.
salvysahagunDec 12, 2010
The are the ones who directly employee people.
mortventDec 12, 2010
Rich guy gets tax cut : income in his store down. No increase in consumer spending at his store. He is either going to cut his worker's hours or close if things get worse.
Net benefit to the economy none, he just gets more money in his pocket at the end of tax season.
Lower/middle income tax cut: income in stores increase as more people are buying products again because they have the money to buy things other than the cheapest items to get by. Profits go up as do the number of consumers in the righ guy's store. He is most likely going to need to hire more people to handle the increased load, or increase the hours of his current employees.
Net benefit in increased spending into the economy, more work available, more demand for 'luxury' products because the majority of consumers can afford them again.
Directly employer or not, if there is no profit coming though the front door. They will not hire more people, nor will they even keep the store open if profits continue to drop. Trickle down does not work, it's like trying to repair a basement by slapping on a new roof.
salvysahagunDec 13, 2010
true
But if he is given a tax cut he can use to buy new things for his store or even open a new one.
So he'll employee twice as many people.
The only reason trickle down economics hasn't worked to its full potiential is because reagan and bush increased the budget while cutting taxes which is a BIG no no.
If every american got their income taxes cut in half then the recession would be over in a matter of months.
consumption and production would soar
bille3Dec 12, 2010
All of the people currently paying no taxes at all are the ones below 50K a year. Nearly half of the population is getting benefits and entitlements from the government. They do not want to lose that, or pay tax on it. They also want the others paying taxes to pay even more tax so they can benefit from those taxes.
mortventDec 12, 2010
So I guess all that money coming out of my sub 50k check and going to the government that I don't get back is nothing?
I pay taxes and make less than 20k a year and get none of them back.
So yes people under 50k a year do pay taxes. The only ones not paying have no income, or have less income per dependant to the point they get it back.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
This is absurd, you know who creates jobs? small business owners? you know who really stimulates growth in our economy? small business owners? and do you know what class those small business owners fall into? the upper class. There are a lot of jackasses out there who want to see successful people taxed so that they can get a handout. get a job.
linuxpersonDec 13, 2010
They've got a lot of faulty arguments to cover up their amoral belief system. You want a better life, work for it you lazy asses.
ren1999Dec 12, 2010
Where have all you smart Diggers been? I have been complaining about this for years with little backup and support.
Obama is not weak. Obama did what was needed to get families their unemployment checks this Christmas to help them and keep our economy going by putting spending money in the hands of those who have none.
The REPUBLICANS, that some voted in in November, held unemployment insurance hostage in order to fight for the only thing the rich are complaining about. And they were able to get even more money.
The Bush Tax Breaks did not create jobs and neither will these tax break extensions. Rich people don't create jobs and start businesses when there are no consumers with jobs who create demand.
The REPUBLICANS know this, but they just want a tax break of $40,000 to $130,000 a year for their constituents. REPUBLICANS do not care about families, police, schools. They only care about themselves -- the rich.
Mark my words, if the U.S. continues to kill the middle class, there will be another revolution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantDec 12, 2010
In every previous revolution, there was a dearth of TV. I'm not so certain when the Capitalists murder the middle class, there will be another (traditional) revolution.
salvysahagunDec 12, 2010
you f**king communist
Look at rich people, 99% of them are business owners.
If you raise their taxes now then they'll obviously have to cut expense.
per se Jeff Bezzos he'll have to cut half a billion dollars in expenses (including employee's) to make back the money he lost in TAXES.
Taxes are the biggest burden on an strong economy and in my opinion the best thing our president with an economic IQ of 90 could do is stop punishing people for being successful and give ALL incomes a dramatic tax cut/ I mean bring marginals down to 20% and yes i said it cut Military spending.If we lowerd all taxes and stoped thinking consumption is what drives an economy and drove production then we'd be out of the recession within 2 years.
But with this keynesian s**t it'll take around 10
arthurreagan31Dec 12, 2010
These guys think that the only thing that creates jobs is government spending. The guy that owns a chain of bakeries makes the decision to take the risk and open a new store to expand his potential profit. But if there are no customers with extra disposable income to buy his deserts and stuff there is not need to expand his business. What job does government create other than one that cost the tax payers.
netantDec 12, 2010
No one believes that gov't spending CREATES new jobs. What they actually believe that artificial gov't spending can temporarily provide an economic stimulus which can AVERT a DEFLATIONARY economic cycle. And there are proto-Keynesian who believe gov't can "invest" in building INFRASTRUCTURE, and when completed, that infrastructure would trigger economic activity that could not have existed previously, and that increased economic growth would pay off the initial expenditure for that infrastructure. Private business investment in infrastructure works the same way.
The textbook example of this is the Tennesee Valley Authority. It took a huge 3rd world region of subsistence farmers, build electric generating facilities and dams to avert floods, enhanced transportation, and *voila*, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and other backward regions (at the time), get TV and internet today, and are able to build auto-manufacturing plants. (You can't do that without electricity and a way to cheaply bring cars to consumers. Sadly, NAFTA advocates can point out that economic globalism builds the economy, because its was Japanese car companies that moved into those regions first.)
What economists believe we are seeing now is the cessation of deflationary trends BUT not enough economic stimulus to spur job growth. Sure we can wait 20 years for private businesses to finally grow the amount of jobs we had a decade ago. But guess what? No one wants to wait that long. As long as we're not seeing inflation now (more than 3%), its not going to kill the US to pump some money to grease the wheels of economic recovery.
We're borrowing money from the rest of the world (particularly the Chinese) to get our economic engine RESTARTED, and if we were a rational, competent nation of voters, business people, and politicians, we'd soon have a growing economy that could pay off what we "borrowed". The problem is America is a nation of retarded, incompetent, narcissistic people who currently only excels at killing other people (and producing preposterous but entertaining, make-believe notions about how the world works. In Hollywood and in NYC/DC).
We HAD to (sort of) make drastic economic measures in 2008-2009 in order to avert a deflationary collapse of our economic system. The problem is that Wall Street is still run by extortionist thieves who also appear to own our Legislature and Executive branches of gov't. (I'd argue the Judiciary as well, but they aren't directly involved in economic management.) There was no significant reregulation of the financial industry to avert another ridiculous economic bubble, and worse, the thieving perpetrators were not brought up on criminal charges. Other than a 1 hour news pundit show (Dylan Ratigan), no other news channel is presenting the argument that Wall Street needs new regulations that are enforced (particularly derivatives), banks/investors eat their toxic assets, and investment bank executives be brought to court. Therefore, our housing market will stay borked, our banking system will still be teetering towards collapse, and taxpayers will be extorted by Obama AND Republicans (and Democrats).
Until the American people communicate to their politicians that its the financial system that needs to be fixed, and vote out anyone who votes against reregulation, and shoot a few egregious politicians, TV and Wall Street executives, its not going to get fixed.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
1.) "It's MY money and the government shouldn't be allowed to take it from me"
For every dollar you make, there's a portion of that dollar which belongs to the services you used in order to be able to make it. So no, the money you earn isn't all yours. Part of it belongs to the construction worker who built and maintains the road you use to get to work. Part of it belongs to the police officer who made it safe for you to leave your house so that you could work. Part of it belongs to the teacher who taught you the skills you needed in order to work. etc.
There are a lot of people on this board who seem to be forgetting that the money they make is actually only made possible by the collective efforts of other people -- who like them, deserve to paid be for their work.
2.) Government wastes taxes / government spending = bad.
Government spending is actually a good thing. It puts money to work while redistributing it more evenly -- which benefits everyone, including the rich. Putting aside the ethical aspects of income distribution, the rich actually have a lot to lose by becoming too rich. When wealth distribution becomes lopsided, a lot of whacky things tend to happen. Ask Mrs. Antoinette.
The problem with government spending is that it can be inefficient -- that is, used to pay for programs that are pointless or less effective. What people should be asking for is for government to spend their tax money more efficiently, not to spend less of it. A well spent government dollar is actually a good thing, and should make the economy even more productive.
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
And before someone says that I'm advocating 100% taxes.. or communism.. I'm not. It's about finding the right balance. Finding the right amount of taxation/spending is key. A lot of people here seem to hold the black and white view that taxes and government spending are evil... which they aren't.
salvysahagunDec 12, 2010
4th amendment
Your money is your property and should not be taken with out a warrant along with witness testomony to back it up...
plus Woodrow Wilson said it would never go above 4% lying piece of s**t
Closed AccountDec 12, 2010
I'm not sure taxes is what is meant by 'seizure' in this case. It was more for the collection of evidence... and what about the 16th amendment?
Either way, this isn't really helpful.
If you remove taxes, how do you expect to maintain the services that allow you to make money? Isn't that self defeating?
salvysahagunDec 13, 2010
16th amendment is a violation of the 4th.
money is property
but the income tax should not exceed 4% for anyone
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
and where did you pull that number from?
salvysahagunDec 13, 2010
Thats what Woodrow Wilson said it would never exceed
Closed AccountDec 13, 2010
So once someone says something, it's impossible to go back and change it? Meaning, if a law has been enacted in the 1910's it can't be changed 100 years latter? I'm not sure how wise that is.
The world has changed a lot since Wilson's day. Cars (roads!), radio, telephone, television, internet, nuclear weapons, etc. We've also learned from the various recessions and depressions since then that social safety nets are needed to curb their impact. All these things require government intervention in order to continue. There's no way Wilson would have been able to predict this.
salvysahagunDec 14, 2010
Its actually more effective to lower taxes during depressions than raise them like FDR and Obama are planning to do.
The reasons this recession happened was because of government intervention
CRA, Fannie Mae?
Federal Reserve?
infodesignerDec 12, 2010
not that it matters much but its always comforting to know politicians can swallow their pride and admit their follies every once in a while.
Snowblind1Dec 13, 2010
More money for the rich.
geeklammyDec 13, 2010
I've never seen a poor man create jobs.
linuxpersonDec 13, 2010
Thank the flying spaghetti monster that the President isn't listening to some of the Krugman worshippers on this thread. If taxes were raised the economy would be even worse off and then all the digg socialists would be telling us that the taxes just aren't high enough.
Giving the government money to bailout more mega-banks and corporations? I'll pass on that kids, you can pick up the tab once you enter adulthood and start paying taxes.
fotomanDec 13, 2010
Why doesn't he just come out and say it: "Look, the only way to get jobless benefits extended was to cave to the Republicans and give them the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the country"