Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you are correct, that should be the message - get the money out entirely. All elections should be publicly funded, with no private contributions allowed, end of story.
By the way, taxes are not "so high" (aside from LI property taxes). Nationwide, they're at historic lows, and worldwide among the lowest in the first world.
Payroll taxes on middle income earners are the highest on record. Where are you getting historic lows from?? FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Maybe they're lower for top earners and the lower brackets, but not for the middle class. Also, don't forget about federal gasoline taxes which have tripled the last 30 years; among other new taxes the government has brought about including more and more middle class earners being nailed with the AMT than ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan
Unions provide both cash and non-cash support to politicians, and counting only their cash contributions understates their political contributions.
It was a Democrat Congress that gave us the Community Reinvestment Act, and later was led by Senator Dodd and Congressperson Frank that, through Freddie and Frannie, forced the banks to do things -- make mortgage loan and package these loans for resale to other financial institutions -- that the banks would not otherwise have done.
Good points.
Don't forget about the commercials and negative ads the unions will pay for to slander any politician that does not give them their way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverChessies
That is wrong, it was not the eight years of Bush that created the bulk of the debt we have now. Here are the figures:
We are 14 Trillion dollars in debt, Bush is responsible for 4 Trillion of that.
Obama is responsible for 4 Trillion of that.
Clinton is responsible for a little over 1 Trillion of that.
The rest existed before Clinton came into office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the Bush tax cuts in 2003 and the economic recession didn't just suddenly end in 2008, they continue today. You can argue that Obama should have withdrawn all the troops from overseas, cancelled the tax cuts and solved the home mortgage defaults in 2 years but that is unrealistic.
To simpify, the economy was in great shape when Bush took office, although on somewhat of a down turn, Obama probably not quite so good.
Goodnight is right here. I was going to post a similar reply. It's way too simplistic to say that "the deficit did this during admin x" or whatever... There's so many other factors that go into it, one major one being entitlements are growing faster than revenues. Clinton probably had the right idea with the tax code but he also enjoyed a huge boom in the late 90's. Bush & Obama both took office with sliding economies... In fact, if you factor in the wars, republicans probably favor just as much wasteful spending as democrats.
Is it not the government's job to fix roads, bridges, sewer and water systems? I'm not talking about make-work projects, simply repairing what we have already will take decades and could put a lot of people to work on necessary infrastructure.Why would allowing companies to destroy our environment more create jobs? And even if it would, why is that the best way to go about doing so? Why would cutting corporate taxes create jobs when companies are already sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash but not doing so now? I already know the talking points. Please connect the dots to reality.
The big conservative assumption is that by freeing up funds normally spent on taxes, the average company will instead spend that money on additional workforce.
It is a bad assumption because a business could spend that money on any number of things, including additional capital investments that increase productivity per worker. This would actually precipitate lowering the number of personnel required to meet the demands of the business, and would "kill jobs."
This is the problem with lowering taxes for businesses, as they have no vested interest in improving the job market. Specifically increasing taxes on business expenditures unrelated to labor costs, and lowering other labor-related taxes (such as payroll tax), would reduce the desirability of investing in increasing productivity, and put the incentive on just hiring more people.
It's all rhetoric and you're 100% right... The "cash flush" companies are giants who are playing the global labor market and won't repatriate these so called "huge" funds no matter what we do. They're all guilty of it and you can't blame them when they have to make "the street" and "hit the numbers". To suggest that we reverse responsible behavior (like letting companies poison our water supply) on the guess that you'd get a short term bump in hiring is ludicrous. I try to teach my 8 year old that their are consequences for actions. Especially hasty and not well thought out options.
When a grown, supposedly educated, adult stands up in front of you and declares evolution a myth - you have to set your sights pretty low. Concepts like climate change (spooky science) become the voodoo.
I guess in the end this is just a fun distraction. Ignore is something I've never used because the more heated the debate, the more I love participating. I'd hate to miss a wonderful nugget of wisdom from the brain trust!
Point taken.
Not for nothing, for what it's worth, not that my opinion matters, etc., but I do like the way 99% of the people here are discussing things, no pun intended. Some very well thought-out posts here. 'Tis a good read.
The big conservative assumption is that by freeing up funds normally spent on taxes, the average company will instead spend that money on additional workforce.
It is a bad assumption because a business could spend that money on any number of things, including additional capital investments that increase productivity per worker. This would actually precipitate lowering the number of personnel required to meet the demands of the business, and would "kill jobs."
This is the problem with lowering taxes for businesses, as they have no vested interest in improving the job market. Specifically increasing taxes on business expenditures unrelated to labor costs, and lowering other labor-related taxes (such as payroll tax), would reduce the desirability of investing in increasing productivity, and put the incentive on just hiring more people.
You make some good points here especially with lowering payroll taxes...On both ends for employers & employees. Obama finally figured out to do this with his proposed 3% cut in Social Security taxes (6% total) for next year. No question, republicans are against this because it does not benefit the rich. This will definitely give a boost to the economy.
On your second paragraph, why is it a bad thing to increase worker productivity? This is the type of thinking that got the USPS in trouble. You have to constantly adapt to new technology or someone else will, even on the other side of the world -- and they'll out-produce you into bankruptcy (think GM, Kodak). Besides, these capital investments always create new jobs and require new fields to produce these technologies. Sheesh, in your world advancements like the telephone would have been looked down upon and we'd still be using Pony Express!
When it comes down to it, people don't really want jobs. I mean, who wants to work? I could see a future where 75% of the jobs today are handled by computers or machines. You just have to adapt.
We can't make corporations spend, but we can make a business friendly environment to encourage them to spend. We just have to ask ourselves how do we make a more business friendly environment? One way is to lower taxes.
Raising taxes is business unfriendly so that is not a good idea.
This is something that cities/counties have been doing forever. Lower or waive taxes on companies to encourage them to do business in their city.
Quote:
.......It is a bad assumption because a business could spend that money on any number of things, including additional capital investments that increase productivity per worker. This would actually precipitate lowering the number of personnel required to meet the demands of the business, and would "kill jobs.".......
A company can always spend money on whatever it would like, regardless of it's tax liability. We can not control what a company does with it's money. But we can be sure that if we take money out of the company then that is less money the company has for expansion which often includes employees.
So the choice comes down to either lower taxes and have a reasonable probability of expansion, or raise taxes and have almost no probability of expansion.
Goodnight is right here. I was going to post a similar reply. It's way too simplistic to say that "the deficit did this during admin x" or whatever... There's so many other factors that go into it, one major one being entitlements are growing faster than revenues. Clinton probably had the right idea with the tax code but he also enjoyed a huge boom in the late 90's. Bush & Obama both took office with sliding economies... In fact, if you factor in the wars, republicans probably favor just as much wasteful spending as democrats.
Way more complicated! I was simply replying to a comment that said: "you are aware that .......... it was 8 years of Bush Jr. that created the bulk of the debt we have now, right?"
I was trying to show that Bush's 8yrs did not create the bulk of the Debt, only 4 Trillion of the 14 Trillion. Sure, there are a large amount of variables and carry overs and various arguments that could be made. Let's not forget the interest accruing on the Debt! But to say Bush is responsible for the 'bulk of 14 Trillion' is just not valid, almost half of that 14 Trillion was there before Bush even got into office.
My bad Chessies, I quoted the wrong post. Meant for this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverChessies
Here is your proof in concrete numbers: Let's look at the National Debt!
When Bush entered office the National Debt was approximately 6 Trillion. When he left, it was approximately 10 Trillion. The Republicans overspent to the tune of 4 Trillion in 8 years. (yes that sounds pretty bad, but just wait to see what's coming.......)
When Obama came into office the National Debt was approximately 10 Trillion. It is now over 14 Trillion. The Democrats overspent to the tune of 4 Trillion in 2 ½ years!
See the difference, Republicans overspent an average of ½ Trillion per year. The Democrats overspent an average of 2 Trillion a year.
You asked for an example of the Republican party spending less, there it is.
This is why Tea Party members tend to vote Republican: Better chance to meet the goal of less spending and smaller government.
...but even he realized that he had to go back to the Republican ticket to get anywhere because Libertarian ideals were as you said “not palatable to the populous”.
Valid point on Bush not being responsible for half the debt. Makes sense. Also, I think Paul has said that he wants to reform the Republican party.. and that it's not practical to stray from the two-party duopoly (it would be a hollow victory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan
Pequaman, to continue your thought, I think that some who post here should read up on the Luddites, huh?
LOL. Thank goodness there was no HABBA back in the day ( "Horse and Buggy Benevolent Association")...otherwise we'd have to go out back and fuel our horses with beefaroni and hay to go pick up some milk or run errands. Could you imagine Wall Street manipulating the hay market... they'd corner that thing like Standard Oil did to oil back in the day .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
