|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 7:01:55 GMT -8
I've learned so much about republicans from the above exchange! Thanks guys for the help, so enlightening. I had also heard they wanted to kill all the children, enslave our working people, and generally be mean too. Someone once told me they wanted to gut international AIDS programs and our commitment to removing land mines and excess weapons from the developing world too. Republicans believe that business is in the best position to regulate itself. Republicans believe that tax cuts only to the most successful of us create jobs. Republicans believe that people must be forced to be responsible. Republicans believe that the government is the enemy. Republicans believe that economically unsuccessful people must be made to fend for themselves. It is the affect of these beliefs, '78, that make Republicans appear cruel. I cannot find evidence to support the fact that these beliefs have actually improved our condition. Since 1980, I have seen our nation decline economically as Republicans have become more shrill. This nation has seen a huge transfer of risk and responsibility from large entities, i.e. government and employers, to individuals over the last thirty years. This has occurred to a point that we are almost back to the 1880s. We are, individually more responsible for our Health care (and yet our care is more expensive than places where government runs the system). We are more responsible for our pensions, with 401ks (see stock market closing Friday). We are more responsible for our careers as corporations and employers sever relationships at an ever increasing rate, creating individual "free agents" with no bargaining power. We are individually more responsible for negotiating for our employment rights as unions have declined. The majority of the economic disruptions we have faced since 1980, savings and loans, the Enrons, the home mortgages were caused by the excesses of those entities that Republicans insist are overly regulated. Our corporations move jobs out of the country or to "right to work states" without control or compunction. The distribution of wealth in this country has become characterized by an almost Argentina style bifurcation. Our real wages are less than they were in 1980, our health care system, despite its expense, is rated no better than thirty fourth. Our poverty leads the industrialized world, our unemployment rate does not even begin to calculate the real damage at nine percent. Our children die more often than in other industrialized countries and our children are less effectively educated. Republicans vilify the only two currently available vehicles for evening the playing field, the government (which ostensibly represents the people, but with "Citizens United" type decisions its hard to tell), and unions which, despite their problems, serve to give individuals some power in negotiations with their employers. We are less free as a sense of unreasoned paranoia has overtaken us -to the point where our privacy is almost completely gone. The book 1984 is a joke compared to now. Now, being an observant person, I cannot help but connect these things to the rise of the Republican party and the persistence of their message since 1980. I know that other factors come into play, but you cannot dispute the Republican contribution to this decline. The problem is that Republicans do not see these changes as decline. And that '78, makes them appear cruel. i wish I had more free time to address all of your strawman arguments. First up, by the characterizations you give of Republican positions, one would have to agree in some form with you. Sadly, your characterizations aren't accurate -strawman- so debating them is fruitless. Privacy almost completely gone? Seriously? Diane Feinstein doesn't agree with that, nor the large volume of democrats that passed the extension of the full Patriot Act a couple weeks ago. Oddly, it was a Republican that held it up. Still, one cannot say honestly that privacy is nearly gone, you'd have to make the case, not a platitude. Globalization caused off-shoring of the work force, as does over-regulation. Globalization has as many roots in democratic economic policy than does conservative. Interestingly, it is beginning to flow the other way. Perhaps it is the dollar, perhaps the US workforce has finally morphed to meet the new realization. Our industry wasn't modernizing, partly because of the institutions you are enamored with, starting with the unions. They held on and pushed back too hard and forced the outsourcing in many areas. Now look at the Big Three automakers, many having significantly weakened their unions and are roaring back - efficiently and with a higher degree of quality. Republicans see overbearance on taxation as a drag on the economy. the government doesn't drive velocity well, often stops it in it's tracks. The US economy, when properly tuned, turns one US Dollar many times, creating what we had in Reagan II that lasted well into the Clinton administration. It doesn't advocate tax cuts merely for the wealthy, as you allude, but for the taxpayers, who generally are the middle and upper class by design. They are the ones that hire, the lower class are the ones that are hired. It is sybiotic. The government doesn't do a good job of hiring the poor, the private economy does. That is where our economic focus must be, not a bigger, inefficient government. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 12, 2011 7:43:00 GMT -8
Republicans believe that business is in the best position to regulate itself. Republicans believe that tax cuts only to the most successful of us create jobs. Republicans believe that people must be forced to be responsible. Republicans believe that the government is the enemy. Republicans believe that economically unsuccessful people must be made to fend for themselves. It is the affect of these beliefs, '78, that make Republicans appear cruel. I cannot find evidence to support the fact that these beliefs have actually improved our condition. Since 1980, I have seen our nation decline economically as Republicans have become more shrill. This nation has seen a huge transfer of risk and responsibility from large entities, i.e. government and employers, to individuals over the last thirty years. This has occurred to a point that we are almost back to the 1880s. We are, individually more responsible for our Health care (and yet our care is more expensive than places where government runs the system). We are more responsible for our pensions, with 401ks (see stock market closing Friday). We are more responsible for our careers as corporations and employers sever relationships at an ever increasing rate, creating individual "free agents" with no bargaining power. We are individually more responsible for negotiating for our employment rights as unions have declined. The majority of the economic disruptions we have faced since 1980, savings and loans, the Enrons, the home mortgages were caused by the excesses of those entities that Republicans insist are overly regulated. Our corporations move jobs out of the country or to "right to work states" without control or compunction. The distribution of wealth in this country has become characterized by an almost Argentina style bifurcation. Our real wages are less than they were in 1980, our health care system, despite its expense, is rated no better than thirty fourth. Our poverty leads the industrialized world, our unemployment rate does not even begin to calculate the real damage at nine percent. Our children die more often than in other industrialized countries and our children are less effectively educated. Republicans vilify the only two currently available vehicles for evening the playing field, the government (which ostensibly represents the people, but with "Citizens United" type decisions its hard to tell), and unions which, despite their problems, serve to give individuals some power in negotiations with their employers. We are less free as a sense of unreasoned paranoia has overtaken us -to the point where our privacy is almost completely gone. The book 1984 is a joke compared to now. Now, being an observant person, I cannot help but connect these things to the rise of the Republican party and the persistence of their message since 1980. I know that other factors come into play, but you cannot dispute the Republican contribution to this decline. The problem is that Republicans do not see these changes as decline. And that '78, makes them appear cruel. i wish I had more free time to address all of your strawman arguments. First up, by the characterizations you give of Republican positions, one would have to agree in some form with you. Sadly, your characterizations aren't accurate -strawman- so debating them is fruitless. Privacy almost completely gone? Seriously? Diane Feinstein doesn't agree with that, nor the large volume of democrats that passed the extension of the full Patriot Act a couple weeks ago. Oddly, it was a Republican that held it up. Still, one cannot say honestly that privacy is nearly gone, you'd have to make the case, not a platitude. Globalization caused off-shoring of the work force, as does over-regulation. Globalization has as many roots in democratic economic policy than does conservative. Interestingly, it is beginning to flow the other way. Perhaps it is the dollar, perhaps the US workforce has finally morphed to meet the new realization. Our industry wasn't modernizing, partly because of the institutions you are enamored with, starting with the unions. They held on and pushed back too hard and forced the outsourcing in many areas. Now look at the Big Three automakers, many having significantly weakened their unions and are roaring back - efficiently and with a higher degree of quality. Republicans see overbearance on taxation as a drag on the economy. the government doesn't drive velocity well, often stops it in it's tracks. The US economy, when properly tuned, turns one US Dollar many times, creating what we had in Reagan II that lasted well into the Clinton administration. It doesn't advocate tax cuts merely for the wealthy, as you allude, but for the taxpayers, who generally are the middle and upper class by design. They are the ones that hire, the lower class are the ones that are hired. It is sybiotic. The government doesn't do a good job of hiring the poor, the private economy does. That is where our economic focus must be, not a bigger, inefficient government. .
"Sadly, your characterizations aren't accurate -strawman- so debating them is fruitless."Debating the condition of our country is fruitless, '78? Well are the statements below true or false? Are they true or are they false? Our economic condition is worse than 1980? Unemployment higher now than in 1980? Our tax rates are lower now than in 1980? Our disparity in wealth is greater now than in 1980? People making less money and have suffered asset valuation declines unlike anything seen in 1980? Real wages are less than in 1980? People are responsible for their health and retirement to a greater degree than in 1980? Our health system is less efficient since 1980? Republicans advocate less government involvement and advocate for less unionization? Since the wealthy and corporations are taxed less, we are better off? Republicans advocate more individual responsibility and vilify economic dependence? Current hires making less in wages and benefits than before? These statements are objectively true or they are false. If they are false tell me how they are false. Then tell me why, if Republicans advocate for these things, how they are not involved in the decline. By they way, business is not interested hiring the poor. They are interested in hiring the most qualified individual at the lowest price. Business has no morality. Business is not patriotic. Business makes a profit. That is their function. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 8:13:01 GMT -8
No, fella, debating someone who uses strawman arguments is fruitless when my personal time is limited as I stated. I actually STAND for my beliefs, as the many here who know me personally understand what that means.
As an aside, I see some of your cut and pastes above as positives.
|
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 12, 2011 8:18:11 GMT -8
Republicans believe that business is in the best position to regulate itself. Republicans believe that tax cuts only to the most successful of us create jobs. Republicans believe that people must be forced to be responsible. Republicans believe that the government is the enemy. Republicans believe that economically unsuccessful people must be made to fend for themselves. It is the affect of these beliefs, '78, that make Republicans appear cruel. I cannot find evidence to support the fact that these beliefs have actually improved our condition. Since 1980, I have seen our nation decline economically as Republicans have become more shrill. This nation has seen a huge transfer of risk and responsibility from large entities, i.e. government and employers, to individuals over the last thirty years. This has occurred to a point that we are almost back to the 1880s. We are, individually more responsible for our Health care (and yet our care is more expensive than places where government runs the system). We are more responsible for our pensions, with 401ks (see stock market closing Friday). We are more responsible for our careers as corporations and employers sever relationships at an ever increasing rate, creating individual "free agents" with no bargaining power. We are individually more responsible for negotiating for our employment rights as unions have declined. The majority of the economic disruptions we have faced since 1980, savings and loans, the Enrons, the home mortgages were caused by the excesses of those entities that Republicans insist are overly regulated. Our corporations move jobs out of the country or to "right to work states" without control or compunction. The distribution of wealth in this country has become characterized by an almost Argentina style bifurcation. Our real wages are less than they were in 1980, our health care system, despite its expense, is rated no better than thirty fourth. Our poverty leads the industrialized world, our unemployment rate does not even begin to calculate the real damage at nine percent. Our children die more often than in other industrialized countries and our children are less effectively educated. Republicans vilify the only two currently available vehicles for evening the playing field, the government (which ostensibly represents the people, but with "Citizens United" type decisions its hard to tell), and unions which, despite their problems, serve to give individuals some power in negotiations with their employers. We are less free as a sense of unreasoned paranoia has overtaken us -to the point where our privacy is almost completely gone. The book 1984 is a joke compared to now. Now, being an observant person, I cannot help but connect these things to the rise of the Republican party and the persistence of their message since 1980. I know that other factors come into play, but you cannot dispute the Republican contribution to this decline. The problem is that Republicans do not see these changes as decline. And that '78, makes them appear cruel. It must be horrible to live in a world that you see like that. Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal see it completely differently. Opportunity and innovation vary inversely with onerous regulation and taxes. Do you have pity parties with =Bob and Aztec70 to whine and cry about your miserable lives or are you one of us who thanks God every day for the wonderful country where we were born or chose to migrate to? " Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal see it completely differently." When you are penniless, $8.00 per hour seems like a great deal. It does not to my kids. Our decline is real. You cannot dispute that fact. What terrifies me is that anyone listens to conservatives who believe the cure for our problems are to drive wages and benefits down, dis empower the individual's ability to negotiate with business and increase benefits to the wealthy. Trickle down has not worked. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 12, 2011 8:34:19 GMT -8
No, fella, debating someone who uses strawman arguments is fruitless when my personal time is limited as I stated. I actually STAND for my beliefs, as the many here who know me personally understand what that means. As an aside, I see some of your cut and pastes above as positives. My personal time is as limited as yours and every doggone bit as valuable. Are you implying that I do not stand for my beliefs? Please show me how I have not. I may not agree with you, but I will compare my integrity, fidelity to my beliefs and patriotism, to yours any time you would like. I have been reading your posts with admiration for many years, so it was unnecessary for you to amplify what I have already discerned. I know that you have the courage of your convictions. Your integrity is without question. What did I cut and paste, beside the comment I wished to refute? I am the author of my own ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 8:50:03 GMT -8
No, fella, debating someone who uses strawman arguments is fruitless when my personal time is limited as I stated. I actually STAND for my beliefs, as the many here who know me personally understand what that means. As an aside, I see some of your cut and pastes above as positives. My personal time is as limited as yours and every doggone bit as valuable. Are you implying that I do not stand for my beliefs? Please show me how I have not. I may not agree with you, but I will compare my integrity, fidelity to my beliefs and patriotism, to yours any time you would like. I have been reading your posts with admiration for many years, so it was unnecessary for you to amplify what I have already discerned. I know that you have the courage of your convictions. Your integrity is without question. What did I cut and paste, beside the comment I wished to refute? I am the author of my own ideas. I was only talking of my stand, not implying otherwise. Sorry for the misconception. I am a bit short and apologize for my tone. Working 14hr/7day weeks away from ones family for 6 months sometimes hardens an edge. I have enjoyed the back and forth with many over time but this past couple years have been a little more challenging. I deal with folks in my day job that talk platitudes and themes and part of my job is to cut through that and return things to reality, I suspect it has an effect on my tone. That isn't intended. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 9:24:40 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 12, 2011 9:58:45 GMT -8
It must be horrible to live in a world that you see like that. Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal see it completely differently. Opportunity and innovation vary inversely with onerous regulation and taxes. Do you have pity parties with =Bob and Aztec70 to whine and cry about your miserable lives or are you one of us who thanks God every day for the wonderful country where we were born or chose to migrate to? " Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal see it completely differently." When you are penniless, $8.00 per hour seems like a great deal. It does not to my kids. Our decline is real. You cannot dispute that fact. What terrifies me is that anyone listens to conservatives who believe the cure for our problems are to drive wages and benefits down, dis empower the individual's ability to negotiate with business and increase benefits to the wealthy. Trickle down has not worked. What you are describing is not the work of Conservatives. It is not even accurate. We are seeing a resurgence in the Auto Industry in part due to weakening unions and providing tax incentive. That is the reversal that provides reasonable paying jobs for many people rather than driving high paying union jobs offshore. You must note that there are many more jobs in right to work States then where unions have power. If your kids work for $8 an hour then you have failed them by warehousing them in public schools rather than doing your duty as a parent to give them the education that will make them competitive on the job market. We all wake up every morning with the same opportunity. It is our responsibility to see what we have and take advantage of those opportunities. In most ways you can see the many differences in liberals and Conservatives in how they see the World. Is it full of obstacles or full of opportunities? Where are the opportunities in an Obama/Reid/Pelosi World? It is in replacing them with people who can and will right the economy and create good paying jobs in a vibrant community full of hope. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 12, 2011 13:16:57 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be. Good points here re: "beyond our means". We had what seemed to be limitless resources and virtually no competition during the salad days. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 12, 2011 13:33:19 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be. " I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long" At the end of the Clinton administration, we had a budget surplus. Without the tax cuts and the wars, we would be running a deficit for very little more than the reduction in revenue caused by the downturn, which was caused by too much deregulation. Republicans do not want to increase some of the lowest tax rates in our history. No revenue increases for them! No family or business would operate just by cutting expenses alone. Why aren't we talking about revenue? I do not buy the tax cut economic stimulation meme-at all. You cannot prove that it has worked, because it hasn't. As to families, for the past forty years ,most people have been fighting to offset our reduced real wages and increased retirement and health risk by putting wives to work and depending on the increasing value of our homes. Our private debt is not profligacy, but an attempt to maintain a corroding standard of living. I am not anywhere near as sanguine about our future as you, nearly four years after the current recession began. It appears to be structural in nature and our leadership is doing nothing about it. They are cutting expenses! You say we "have to be more careful". You say it as if the people in debt were not influenced by people with superior expertise and a financial interest in the outcome. You say it as if the debt was some moral issue. Which people are really to blame for our situation, anyway? I'll bet we disagree there, by God. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 19:04:02 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be. " I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long" At the end of the Clinton administration, we had a budget surplus. Without the tax cuts and the wars, we would be running a deficit for very little more than the reduction in revenue caused by the downturn, which was caused by too much deregulation. Republicans do not want to increase some of the lowest tax rates in our history. No revenue increases for them! No family or business would operate just by cutting expenses alone. Why aren't we talking about revenue? I do not buy the tax cut economic stimulation meme-at all. You cannot prove that it has worked, because it hasn't. As to families, for the past forty years ,most people have been fighting to offset our reduced real wages and increased retirement and health risk by putting wives to work and depending on the increasing value of our homes. Our private debt is not profligacy, but an attempt to maintain a corroding standard of living. I am not anywhere near as sanguine about our future as you, nearly four years after the current recession began. It appears to be structural in nature and our leadership is doing nothing about it. They are cutting expenses! You say we "have to be more careful". You say it as if the people in debt were not influenced by people with superior expertise and a financial interest in the outcome. You say it as if the debt was some moral issue. Which people are really to blame for our situation, anyway? I'll bet we disagree there, by God. I would agree that leadership isn't doing enough but completely disagree of your take on "living beyond our means." This trend has been going for years and is only recently, due directly to the current economy, finally changing. There was no trend of McMansion in the middle class, nor the expensive hobby relative to ones income. Somewhere in the 80s that changed and people wanted to live higher, multiple cars, multiple TVs, clothes, large vacations, dining out, etc. Yes, that helped fuel the economy that Reagan's administration ushered in that lasted through most of the Clinton administration but it was a national problem, individual and government. It wasn't about making ends meet for most, it was about keeping up with the Joneses. No better example than what happened to the housing market. The government was pushing low and low middle income families into homebuying beyond their capability. We can point many fingers at that but in the end, when the market crashed, this was quite revealing to many how deep they were in. In a perverse way, it is helping shore up our end. Even the business cuts and efficiencies are helping. All though the govt is doing a horrible job of righting the ship, individuals and business are doing their part. Off-shoring is showing signs of reversing in certain sectors as well. Individuals and business, large and small are leading the way, as it should be. They will be the ones to fix the unemployment situation as well. bookmark this for three years and lets see... |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 12, 2011 19:07:06 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be. Good points here re: "beyond our means". We had what seemed to be limitless resources and virtually no competition during the salad days. Sadly, there were a lot of economists trying to tell us that as well but we didn't want to hear it. As an example, look at the lonely arguments against Fanny Mae being pushed to give out loans to those that didn't meet reasonable standards as one small example. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 12, 2011 20:08:07 GMT -8
One thing I will add as context as I dont have time to discuss each item is that I think we as a country have lived beyond our means for too long. Right and left, poor and rich. We all are culpable. Many of our fellow citizens borrowed deeply into debt, often using our artifically high housing values as collateral. The good news is that our mortages will eventually rise to our debt level and we are collectively reducing our personal debt. That will save the nation more than most anything else. We have learned to live within our means and will be more careful in the future. An article published today by Marketwatch warns that we won't be able to retire into our 80s. That is a startling statistic but it isn't balanced. The economy is correcting itself, as I mentioned with our personal debt. inevtec rightly mentions that businesses are streamlining, that is actually a good thing in the broader aspect. Once the fundamentals are secured, the economy will move again regardless of who the President may be. Anybody read Greenspan's book after he retired? One of the things that struck me was his like for Clinton. He's a conservative Republican -- he supported Paul Ryan's budget plan on CNBC a week or so ago. So his appreciating Clinton was quite a surprise. But what really struck me was he wrote that we were doing so well economically under Clinton that the Fed began to worry about what their role might be in an era of extended budget surpluses. What if there were no national debt? They saw that as a possibility. It would change the tools they use and how they used them and they felt a need to begin to research that. But then we cut taxes again under Bush so they didn't need to worry about budget surpluses any longer. He didn't like Bush II at all. My point was that I agree that the economy has a tremendous capacity to heal itself -- enough so that we could not only reduce the rate of growth in out national debt but potentially even pay it off. I have a question for those who want to continually cut taxes on higher income tax brackets. If we have all lived beyond our means and the economy won't truly flourish again until we pay down personal debt, then why should we be giving the tax breaks to the well to do instead of to the rest of us with a lot of personal debt? The problem isn't a lack of money for investment; the problem is a lack of buyers -- we're all hoarding cash and paying down debt in case something even worse happens. So if you raised the highest tax bracket to (say) 50%, while concurrently drastically cutting tax rates on the lower and middle classes, you'd accelerate the repayment of personal debt, and hurry the day when we would spend again. I'm thinking rich folks would rather pay a 50% tax on a $2 mil profit than 33% on a $500,000 profit. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 13, 2011 3:02:27 GMT -8
Anybody read Greenspan's book after he retired? I have a question for those who want to continually cut taxes on higher income tax brackets. If we have all lived beyond our means and the economy won't truly flourish again until we pay down personal debt, then why should we be giving the tax breaks to the well to do instead of to the rest of us with a lot of personal debt? The problem isn't a lack of money for investment; the problem is a lack of buyers -- we're all hoarding cash and paying down debt in case something even worse happens. So if you raised the highest tax bracket to (say) 50%, while concurrently drastically cutting tax rates on the lower and middle classes, you'd accelerate the repayment of personal debt, and hurry the day when we would spend again. I'm thinking rich folks would rather pay a 50% tax on a $2 mil profit than 33% on a $500,000 profit. Yoda out... . What is your definition of low, mid and rich? Current democratic party comments talk about the rich but their tax increase proffers hit at the middle class, despite President Obamas pledge. As long as he doesn't change the AMT, it reaches farther and farther into the middle class and hammers them/us. That is just one example. So, what income level are you talking about when you talk about 50% rate? Hmmm? Give the number. By the way, the lower classes don't effectively pay income taxes relative so cutting theirs won't help. You talk about a lack of buyers, there are a lot of reasons but people are mostly beginning to live within their means. If you want accelerated spending, help the folks generating the jobs that pay people who in turn spend money. It isn't rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 13, 2011 7:00:46 GMT -8
What is your definition of low, mid and rich? Current democratic party comments talk about the rich but their tax increase proffers hit at the middle class, despite President Obamas pledge. As long as he doesn't change the AMT, it reaches farther and farther into the middle class and hammers them/us. That is just one example. So, what income level are you talking about when you talk about 50% rate? Hmmm? Give the number. By the way, the lower classes don't effectively pay income taxes relative so cutting theirs won't help. You talk about a lack of buyers, there are a lot of reasons but people are mostly beginning to live within their means. If you want accelerated spending, help the folks generating the jobs that pay people who in turn spend money. It isn't rocket science. Current Federal Income Tax Rates for Married, Filing Jointly, are: If Taxable Income Is:………..……… The Tax Is: < $16,751…………………..……10% of the taxable income >$16,750 but <$68,001………….$1,675 plus 15% of the excess >$68,000 but <137,301………….$9,362.50 plus 25% of the excess >$137,300 but <$209,251……… $26,687.50 plus 28% of the excess >$209,250 but <$373,651……….$46,883.50 plus 33% of the excess > $373,650……………………….$101,085.50 plus 35% of the excess So how about something like this... If Taxable Income Is:....................The Tax Is: < $16,751..................................5% of the taxable income >$16,750 but <$68,001................$837.55 plus 10% of the excess >$68,000 but <137,301................$5,125.10 plus 22% of the excess >$137,300 but <$209,251.............$16,373.74 plus 25% of the excess >$209,250 but <$373,651.............$22,081.19 plus 30% of the excess > $373,650 but <$500001.............$52,944.66 plus 36.19% of the excess > $500,000 but <$750,001............$68,505.74 plus 40% of the excess > $750,000 but <$1 Mil................$127,402.29 plus 45% of the excess > 1 Mil.......................................$169,831.03 plus 50% of the excess So if you keep the same income categories, but add a couple at the top, then you get this: If Taxable Income Is:............Old Tax Rate..........New Tax Rate...............Tax Savings < $16,751..................................10%............................5%............................$ 837.55 >$16,750 but <$68,001.............15%............................10%..........................$2,813.82 >$68,000 but <137,301.............25%............................22%..........................$2,936.24 >$137,300 but <$209,251.........28%............................25%..........................$3,479.89 >$209,250 but <$373,651.........33%............................30%..........................$6,440.19 > $373,650 but <$500001.........35%............................36.19%.....................$ 1.46 > $500,000 but <$750,001........35%............................40%.......................-$58,895.10 > $750,000 but <$1 Mil............35%............................45%.....................-$101,323.84 > 1 Mil......................................35%............................50%..........................Varies Forgive my alignment issues... Also, I'm arguing concept here -- I have no idea what these exact numbers would do to the deficit. My objective was to make the idea tax neutral for those earning $373,650 to $500,000, increase taxes on those above that range and decrease it below that range. I understand that you are a proponent of supply side economics -- your "rocket science" comment makes that clear. You say that we should help the people who generate jobs but those folks have the money to invest but chose not to as there is nobody to buy their products. The problem isn't supply side; the problem is demand side. But supply side economics has transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthy -- for the first time in our history, we have a shrinking middle class. Supply side economics (as well as uncontrolled spending) has given us huge budget deficits. For the first 200 years of our history, we got along just fine without supply side economics and we thrived as a nation. We grew our middle class. We had very little debt. It wasn't broken and Reagan, et al fixed it anyway. Boy did they fix it. And at this particular point in time, our problem isn't a lack of supply (of capital), it is a lack of demand. We should be focusing on the demand side. In my view, Obama should announce a tax cut -- one like the above. One that focuses on the middle and lower class instead of the upper class. One that would increase demand. He'd undercut the demands of the right for a tax cut as they could hardly object to a cut in taxes at this point. And he would have overwhelming support form those making less than a half million a year. If there is one thing that supply side economics has demonstrated, it is that it doesn't work for the good of the nation as a whole. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 13, 2011 8:45:31 GMT -8
If the demand side is caused by uncertainty and unemployment then the model has to focus on the job creators. You make a huge leap of logic by saying they aren't "choosing" to invest. Investment goes where their is expected demand. With this economy and this leadership, there is no sail, no wind, no clue. Fix that, continue to shore up debt, and things will work.
You made another curious point, that we were fine without supply side for two hundred years. That is not accurate. First, we were structurally unsound and Carter pushed us over the edge having failed to listen to John Kennedy. Reagan fixed that and got industry working again. The entire late 1800s transportation and subsequent industrial revolution as well as the 50s was about industry leading the economy. The GI Bill worked as well, getting people educated. We are educated now and colleges are bursting at the seams (some who shouldn't be there but that is a different topic) but industry is understandably hesitant. There is no leadership right now and the ship is floundering. Fix a few fundamentals, build on the reduced personal debt and things will start to work. Remember, we also face a military drawdown in a couple years and the economy has to be ready for the influx of working age, motivated people or those that aren't quite up to speed now will truly be chronically unemployed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 13, 2011 9:09:15 GMT -8
If the demand side is caused by uncertainty and unemployment then the model has to focus on the job creators. You make a huge leap of logic by saying they aren't "choosing" to invest. Investment goes where their is expected demand. With this economy and this leadership, there is no sail, no wind, no clue. Fix that, continue to shore up debt, and things will work. You made another curious point, that we were fine without supply side for two hundred years. That is not accurate. First, we were structurally unsound and Carter pushed us over the edge having failed to listen to John Kennedy. Reagan fixed that and got industry working again. The entire late 1800s transportation and subsequent industrial revolution as well as the 50s was about industry leading the economy. The GI Bill worked as well, getting people educated. We are educated now and colleges are bursting at the seams (some who shouldn't be there but that is a different topic) but industry is understandably hesitant. There is no leadership right now and the ship is floundering. Fix a few fundamentals, build on the reduced personal debt and things will start to work. Remember, we also face a military drawdown in a couple years and the economy has to be ready for the influx of working age, motivated people or those that aren't quite up to speed now will truly be chronically unemployed. Job creators create jobs in anticipation of a demand for their products -- or more correctly, in anticipation of the profits that such demand usually predicts. There is no demand right now. As a nation, the middle and lower classes are hunkered down -- fearful that they may lose their jobs (if they still have them); fearful that they may lose their houses (if they haven't already). The focus is on paying down debt, rather than buying things. The economy will not begin buying again until we have unwound our personal debt. The best way to do that is to assist people in repaying their debt rather than to contribute more to capital creation when we have too much capital already. That means target your tax cut at the people who have debt. Don't target it at the people who have relatively little debt. That's not a leap of logic. You hear it every week on CNBC -- which doesn't exactly pimp for Obama. In my own industry, we have a "soft market" and carriers are writing insurance at a loss because there is too much capital chasing too few premium dollars. Also, investment doesn't go where people expect demand. They go where they expect profits -- which is similar but not identical. Either way, that is why people don't need additional capital to invest right now. There is no (jobs creating) place to invest right now that looks profitable because nobody is buying. Or at least there aren't enough of them. Incidentally, Carter decreased debt as a percentage of GDP by 3.3% while he was in office while Reagan increased it by 20.6% during his two terms. Supply side economics at work. The claim that it would reduce debt by increasing demand and profits and thereby increasing the total taxes received has failed miserably under every one of the four Presidents who have promoted the idea. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jun 13, 2011 9:23:02 GMT -8
Assist people in paying their debt? You have to be kidding. We as a nation got into debt because we were living beyond our means, what you propose is a typical enabling lefty response. No, no fricken way, we have to do it ourselves and it is working. We are learning the hard lesson now and by doing it ourselves, patiently, we are learning to not do it again. Bail out people's debt and we'll be right back in it. We have to be patient, let the fundamentals right themselves and perhaps get an economic policy in place that reinforces that. We have nothing now, the hidden recovery is coming from the individual, frankly, I can wait, it is the best way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 13, 2011 9:31:53 GMT -8
Assist people in paying their debt? You have to be kidding. We as a nation got into debt because we were living beyond our means, what you propose is a typical enabling lefty response. No, no fricken way, we have to do it ourselves and it is working. We are learning the hard lesson now and by doing it ourselves, patiently, we are learning to not do it again. Bail out people's debt and we'll be right back in it. We have to be patient, let the fundamentals right themselves and perhaps get an economic policy in place that reinforces that. We have nothing now, the hidden recovery is coming from the individual, frankly, I can wait, it is the best way. Come on, it's not a direct bailout of people's debt. It is a tax cut that is targeted at people who have debt. Presumably they will use it to pay down debt as that is what they are trying to do anyway. It is no different than targeting a tax cut at people who will use the savings to invest. (What? Subsidizing rich people's investments? What you propose is a typical subsidizing the rich righty response!!!) Seriously, either way, it is done with the goal of improving the economy. It is just a question of whether you are taking a supply side or a demand side approach. The right is all about the supply side. I'm merely arguing that, at this point in time, we should be targeting the demand side. The problem isn't too little supply; today it's too little demand. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jun 13, 2011 10:25:27 GMT -8
Fifty percent of everything above $30,000
|
|
