Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Bump.
|
Bump? For propaganda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
As a result of the war, spending increased and revenue decreased which created more debt.
|
False statement (ie Propaganda).
The wars most certainly resulted in spending increases,
but they did not result in revenue decreases.
You might want to run that by your Nazi Obamabot Master and get some input.
I would also point out that all revenues began declining in 2000
before the Bush Tax Cuts.
You might want to run that by your Nazi Obamabot Master and get some input as well.
Your total revenues, including individual income tax revenues began declining in 2000 for two reasons: recession and loss of your work force.
Tax revenues began increasing in 2003 and continued to increase through 2007. In fact, tax revenues surpassed 2000 levels in 2004. Revenues in 2000 were about $2.1 TRILLION but they increased to $2.5 TRILLION by 2007, in spite of the fact that your labor participation rate declined by 1 full percentage point from 67.1% to 66.0%.
In other words, a lesser percentage of the labor force was employed, yet tax revenues still increased.
Run that by your Nazi Task-Masters, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
This debate has been tackled....
|
What debate?
A debate requires facts, and you have presented propaganda and disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
The split ultimately revolves around the belief in whether or not "trickle down" economics work.
|
No, it does not. That is a
non-sequitur fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
I will make the assumption and state that the end goal of this debate is ultimately about lowering the US debt and decreasing unemployment, which I assume is in the interests of both Republican and Democratic voters. I request an explanation if you do not think that is so.
|
Neither is possible.
Your economy is fragile. It is being buoyed by the Bush Tax Cuts, the
faux FICA tax holiday, and government spending.
Quote:
UMass Donahue Institute projects federal cuts would cost
state 52,000 jobs
|
UMass Donahue Institute projects federal cuts would cost state 52,000 jobs | GazetteNET
That will be another of The Boy King's legacies: 2.5 Million jobs lost over the next 10 years because he is incompetent.
Taxachewsucks will lose 52,000 jobs. Not every State will lose that many, but then for every State that doesn't, you have States like Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and others that will lose 100,000+.
Your economy will begin to suffer yet again once the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and once the
faux FICA tax holiday expires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
One issue that needs to be focused on is wealth of the CEOs and the like of a corporation, as well as those with inherited wealth.
|
Why?
You cannot tax yourself into prosperity. You most certainly cannot tax yourself out of debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
If republicans are going to make the claim that the incomes of wealthy create jobs they would have to address how much of that income actually goes to jobs.
|
Four has-been unemployed guys and a gal working out of a garage needed about $30 Million.
You think a bank gave it to them? Nope. Did the government give it to them? Nope.
But wealthy private investors did, and because they did....
....you can sit in Qualcomm Stadium and watch sporting events.
Did you figure out how it works yet?
There's a guy. He has an idea. He's sitting at home on a computer working the telephones swapping chemicals and storage space. Proctor & Gamble has about 270,000 gallons of kosher glycerine sitting around, there's a tank farm on the Ohio River with storage space, he marries them up.
Great job no? How do you expand that? You need to your own tank farms.
He bought the old UNOCAL facility on Southside Avenue in Cincinnati, which used to be owned by Union 76, which was previously owned by Sun Oil.
Where did he get the $Millions to clean it up to EPA specs, bring the port up to DHS standards, etc etc etc?
Did he go to a bank? Nope.
Did the government give him the money? Nope.
Wealthy private investors ponied up the $Millions for him to get started.
Now have you figured it out yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Of course the jobs over here I'm talking about are in quantity of whole able-bodied persons holding american citizenship. It doesn't do Americans on this forum any good if the majority of the amount of disposable personal income goes to create jobs in other countries.
|
How do you know it doesn't do any good?
I will be gracious and wait patiently while you explain to everyone on C-D how a Romanian earning $2.11/hour can afford to be a $60,000 car made by US auto-workers earning $48/hour.
If that is too difficult for you, then perhaps you can explain to everyone how a Romanian earning $2.11/hour can afford to buy Proctor & Gamble products made in the US by workers earning $27/hour.
Ford is opening a new plant in India. I would ask you to explain why, but if you cannot figure out the previous questions then I seriously doubt, you can explain how people who make $1,000 per year can buy a $36,000 Detroit car.
That should make your head spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Another topic to focus on are corporations. I assume that members of the forum know how much greater in value are the net profits (After all has been said and done and employees have been paid off) of corporations are greater than the personal income of people (wealthy and non-wealthy) and that they know how little they pay in taxes. Again, people who participate in this debate need to consider things that they don't usually consider. The personal taxes for a CEO and an employer are one thing, corporation taxes are different altogether.
|
I would be happy if you would consider how corporations use profits.
Let's talk about oil companies.
How do you think oil companies, um, you know, uh, find oil?
You think the Ghost of Christmas Past shows up at a board meeting and points his bony finger at a map?
Is that what you thought?
Uh, no, they use oil company profits.
The profits of the oil companies are used to bid on exploration rights for tracts of land in other countries. The profits are also used to pay geologists and chemists to go that country, and live for as a many as 3 years while exploring for oil.
Here's something you didn't know, while US oil companies have to use their profits to do that, oil companies in other countries get money from the government, and they pay less in corporate taxes, and they receive other subsidizes, and I'm talking about oil companies like Statoil (Norway), Royal Dutch Shell (the Netherlands), Total (France) etc etc etc.
What happens if they find oil?
They have to bid on the royalty rights. That costs money and US oil companies use their, um, you know, profits for that.
Here's something you didn't know, while US oil companies have to use their profits to buy the royalty rights, oil companies in other countries get money from the government, and they pay less in corporate taxes, and they receive other subsidizes, and I'm talking about oil companies like Statoil (Norway), Royal Dutch Shell (the Netherlands), Total (France) etc etc etc.
After obtaining the royalty rights, if US oil companies also want to develop that oil, then they have to bid on contracts for the right to develop, process, market and sell the oil.
You think that money falls out of the sky? Nope, US oil companies use their profits.
Here's something you didn't know, while US oil companies have to use their profits to buy the development rights, oil companies in other countries get money from the government, and they pay less in corporate taxes, and they receive other subsidizes, and I'm talking about oil companies like Statoil (Norway), Royal Dutch Shell (the Netherlands), Total (France) etc etc etc.
Figure it out yet?
I guess some people are a little slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
The debate goes like this:
Republicans believe corporate profits lead to jobs therefore they should have less taxes. The Democrats believe the tax revenue from corporate taxes lead to the improvement of the economy therefore they should have more taxes.
|
That's a debate?
You've misrepresented the Republican position. Why did you do that?
Probably because you don't understand it. Let's talk about Durant. Why? Because it's instructive and the thrust of the issue.
Durant gets fired by GM.
Durant meets [Louis] Chevrolet, and they team up to design and build cars called "Chevrolets."
What happens next? Simple. Chevrolet captures a huge chunk of the domestic auto market and out-sells GM on every level.
What happens next? Durant takes all of the
profits he gets and starts buying up GM stock.
What happens next? Durant acquires
51% of GM and stock and now Durant owns GM. GM is now subordinate to Durant and
Durant names himself CEO because he can do that, since he has 51% of GM stock and that makes him the majority shareholder and owner.
How did you put it? We shouldn't be creating jobs in other countries? You should be doing exactly that.
Why?
I just freaking explained why.
Ford cannot sell its $36,000 cars made by its $48/hour union workers in India for a profit.
So Ford shouldn't sell cars in India at all? But Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Peugot and everyone else are opening plants and making cars in India to sell to Indians.
Do I have to spell it out?
Make a car for $25,000 and sell it for $28,000 and you get a $3,000 profit.
Make a car [in India] for $1,000 and sell it for $4,000 and you get what?
Beuller....Bueller....anyone?
A $3,000 profit.
What can all the other car manufactures do with the profits they make in India? They can buy up Ford stock. And what happens if Chinese automaker gets 51% of Ford's stock?
Built Dongfeng-Ford Tough
Wouldn't you rather be driving a Jianghuai-Buick?
Imagine Yourself in a Fiat-Mercury now.
Hyundai-Hyummer. Like Nothing Else.
Is that want you want? Apparently it is. US companies are not just competing in the US, they are competing globally. You might want to consider the impact of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Were it not for 9/11 the economy would be in a different place right now.
|
Wrong. The recession was going to happen no matter what. There's a reason why things are the way they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
Our debt has lowered our rating and the future outlook is unclear for our economy if the budget continues to be unbalanced.
|
Oh, no, your future is quite clear, well actually it's quite dismal, but that's beside the point.
As I've said repeatedly, you will not see a budget surplus prior to the year 2040.
You can bet on it.
You cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities cannot pay for their government pension plans.
You want to tax the wealthy? Go right ahead. Okay, now you're taxing the wealthy and you still cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities still cannot pay for their government pension plans.
You want to tax the wealthy and let the FICA tax holiday expire? So what? Go right ahead. Okay, now you're taxing the wealthy and the FICA tax holiday has ended and you still cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities still cannot pay for their government pension plans.
You want to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire?
Fine. Now you're taxing the wealthy, the FICA tax holiday has ended and the Bush Tax Cuts have expired and you still cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities still cannot pay for their government pension plans.
You want to increase the FICA tax from 6.02% to 9.02%? Great.
Now you're taxing the wealthy, the FICA tax holiday has ended and been increased to 9.02% and the Bush Tax Cuts have expired and you still cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities still cannot pay for their government pension plans.
Your Budget still isn't balanced, and your National Debt is still increasing and what's more, the public part of the National Debt is now nearly 99%.
You want to cut spending and raise taxes on the Middle Class? Be my guest.
Now you're taxing the wealthy, the FICA tax holiday has ended and been increased to 9.02% and the Bush Tax Cuts have expired and you've increased taxes on the Middle Class and you've cut spending, but you still cannot pay for Social Security, or Medicare and States and municipalities still cannot pay for their government pension plans.
However, at that point you should at least be close to balanced budget. Your budget deficits won't be very high, but your National Debt is still increasing.
Cutting spending, well, we already addressed that. It will result in the loss of both government and private sector jobs.
In 2007 I said you would experience a change in life-style, and have to learn how to do less with less, and get used to things like "house-husbands" because if even one person in household has a job, it would be a victory.
I wasn't joking around, and this is not something that is temporary. This is permanent, and you're not even close to being finished. Just wait until Real Inflation running about 35%-45% annually kicks in about 10-11 years from now. Good luck with that.
Debating...
Mircea
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.
