Rebating tax won't get you out of your problem. What it might do is buy more Chinese goods.
|
Rebating tax won't get you out of your problem. What it might do is buy more Chinese goods.
Well, it would have done far more than giving it to just the liberal program wish list that they did waste it on, and waste was the correct word..Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Actually it wouldn't have all gone to the Chinese, much of it would have gone to retire personal debts, mortgages etc... and actually helped the housing crisis. People would have had work done on their houses, bought cars, etc.
As it was it went on things nobody I know has ever seen the results of... or pissed away at places like Solyntra, etc...
Hell if people just went to the local bar (pub for the non-USA readers) and drunk it all, it would have done more good than it did.
Breakdown of Funding
Contracts
Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs - USATODAY.com
Perry says stimulus didn't create jobs; CBO says it did | Front Row Washington
Just to guide you to some facts so you don't have to pull them out of your butts.
Well the Democrats have a great new idea, sue employers who don't hire the unemployed.
If there is a class of victims to be found, Democrats will find it and sue someone's a$$ for it. And if there's a way to force employers to hire those victims, they're bound to create a law for it. Dang it, government really is the solution to everything.
Well... THAT will certainly make employers want to hire. :rolleyes: In the USA anyway. Talk about incentive to move more operations offshore. The dems are making that more attractive by the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.
Bit of false logic there, Tal, no one wants more poor people, they just don't want to pay for the ones you haveQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting. Democrats want more people dependent on government. Democrats think it's fair to punish the successful, even if it means ruining the economy for us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I want fewer poor and fewer dependent in government, and the right to hire whoever I want. Given the choice to hire someone with a good work history or someone with a lot of employment gaps I'll hire the former every time. I'm not in business to be fair to everyone.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't believe that AT ALL... What I BELIEVE is, that Republicans are WILLING, or even worse, making a conscious ATTEMPT to DESTROY the economy, simply so they can beat Obama...
Your senate leader said as much... The limp one did too - "I want this president to FAIL". What? You think they value the country MORE than they HATE Obama?? I don't.
excon
Helping poor people eat, work, and raise kids is ruining the economy? Providing a safety net against republican tyranny is ruining the economy. Come on Steve, you guys did the ruining stuff a while back, so don't blame us for trying to clean up the mess. Grab a mop and help why don't you! Then I might believe you.Quote:
QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting. Democrats want more people dependent on government. Democrats think it's fair to punish the successful, even if it means ruining the economy for us all.
You already have a right to hire whomever you want. Because someone suggest you hire those that the government has to help doesn't mean you have to, and since the government still has to help, those you don't want to hire, I think that speaks for itself.Quote:
I want fewer poor and fewer dependent in government, and the right to hire whoever I want. Given the choice to hire someone with a good work history or someone with a lot of employment gaps I'll hire the former every time. I'm not in business to be fair to everyone.
You guys think paying taxes is a punishment, but its okay to use what the rest of us pay for like police, fire, trash, roads, and services that help you make money. You may not be in the business to be fair, but that is government job, to make sure those you make money off get a fair shake, and fair treatment.
And tell me why you can't be fair, and make money? As long as you can't, we need government, to keep you republicans honest, don't we?? Heck without government, you guys would run your own kingdoms, and we would all be slaves, and pheasants begging for bread. Bad enough you don't want us voting, never have, but now you don't want us poor slaves reading, riting, or anything else without the permission of the "job creators"!!
The last 10 years are evidence of those facts, and what's funny, you blame it on everyone and his mama, and take no responsibility for anything other than YOUR right to make money, the rules of money, and the distribution of money.
You think its all yours, and you are entitled to it all. Yeah right!!
I point to the last 10 years as evidence of fact.
Hello tal:
I know I just gave you one, but I CAN'T stifle myself..
**greenie**
excon
Tal, as I have noted over and over again (and not for my own glory as it were), I give out of my own time and resources to help others - I don't wait for the government to take YOUR money to help someone else. I've had the mop in my hands long before theses discussions ever came about.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So there's no such thing as affirmative action and no need for any discrimination lawsuits, right? Suing an employer for not hiring the unemployed is basically telling the employer the feds don't give a rat's a$$ if your company is successful or not, as long as it's "fair." No one goes into business to be fair, Tal. Making money is the name of the game, and if you don't make money you have no business - see Solyndra for example.Quote:
You already have a right to hire whomever you want.
Apples and oranges. Ethics rules so businesses don't cheat or harm their customers is one thing, rules on who they have to hire is another.Quote:
You guys think paying taxes is a punishment, but its okay to use what the rest of us pay for like police, fire, trash, roads, and services that help you make money. You may not be in the business to be fair, but that is government job, to make sure those you make money off get a fair shake, and fair treatment.
Oh the drama. Proving you're eligible to vote is just common sense AND fair. What, you want rules for business but no rules for elections? Dude!Quote:
Bad enough you don't want us voting, never have, but now you don't want us poor slaves reading, riting, or anything else without the permission of the "job creators"!!
And Bush warned that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble what, 17 times and Dems said there was NOTHING wrong them.Quote:
The last 10 years are evidence of those facts, and what's funny, you blame it on everyone and his mama, and take no responsibility for anything other than YOUR right to make money, the rules of money, and the distribution of money.
Oh, let's go to what Obama said in 2008:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Gibson told him the records show that when capital gains taxes are decreased revenue goes up, and when increased revenue goes down. He didn't care that raising the capital gains tax would affect 100 million people negatively, he wanted to do it anyway out of "fairness."Quote:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
And what's he doing now? He wants to soak the "rich" again out of "fairness" in spite of how it will affect the economy and government revenues - just to get reelected - by doing exactly what even his own party rejected earlier. He also himself said "you don’t raise taxes in a recession." So tell me again who doesn't care about negatively affecting the economy?
Pure Rhetoric, he is going to soak the rich. You have representative government and polls have indicated that many more than the simple majority are in favour of raising tax on high income earners. Even some high income earners are in favour. In the current economic conditions the idea that less tax promotes jobs has been shown for what it is, pure and unadulterated B/S. Someone tried to suggest that less tax means more government revenue. If you or anyoneelse truly believes that try a zero tax regime and see how high government revenues climb. What is needed is a simple tax regime, where there is no way to get out of it, that is fairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Don't argue against more tax, argue for greater transparency and effective use of funds.
I do believe it. And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. It's a proposal called the fair tax (imagine that). And the businesses would hire like mad and people would be working and buying again. Its already been studied.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
Balance, dad, balance, if you have zero tax for companies you will have to raise tax for individuals and there is a business axiom, tax shouldn't drive the business. If you want people to hire get rid of the imposts like health care, such things are barriers in times like these. Thing is Tax on individuals is what controls demand so you want people to hire create demand but you can't do it with just one tool. This is the fallacy of the economic system we have, the idea that tax alone is the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Where did they study this marvel of modern economics, in the bottom of a glass? Sounds like an idea some think tank thought up
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not going to hire anybody... That's just so. What is it about supply and demand that right wingers don't understand?'
excon
Thank you Ex ,you have confirmed my argument. Business isn't going to invest in people or inventory or anythingelse until it has confidence it is going to get a return and to do that they need to see growth in the order book. Calling for reduced tax is just the politics of self.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Tell me, Ex, what do you think people would rather have, a reduced salary or a change in tax scales to increase tax on higher incomes? I'd be betting they will take a chance on the tax scales option, but politicians love to buy support with reduced tax scales, it is just a confidence trick but it answers your question about what is not understood. Tax is very secondary in the mind because it doesn't represent 100% of income. But not having a take home pay is 100% of income. Tax only becomes important when other stress factors are present.
Supply always follows demand, demand is what drives the equation
You have a point Clete, but how do you create demand without putting people to work? How do you create demand by laying off more people? Does it matter who creates the jobs as long as people are working?
Forget the gobble de goop. JOBS< JOBS< JOBS, and millions of them. Who will create them NOW!
So what your saying is that everyone that has more money in their pockets is going to buy gold? Otherwise I believe they will buy goods and services and that will drive demand higher. That will generte more consumption tax which will increase the governments coffers. Isn't that what they are trying to do anyway? Create jobs so people have money to spend to grow the economy ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I didn't say that, but the idea behind it is solid... You're talking about apples and oranges... Clearly, lower taxes will spur economic activity over the LONG RUN - IF the economy doesn't PLUNGE into DEPRESSION first. The "job creators" won't realize the benefit of the tax cuts for MONTHS at best, and if there STILL no demand, they're going to do SOMETHING with their money other than HIRE...
Ultimately, there IS demand. It's just not where the demand used to be. When NOBODY is buying stuff, real smart people are, so there's going to be fortunes made.. It's just NOT enough to stimulate the economy.
But, the government can create a HUGE demand, RIGHT NOW, by spending money on repairing the infrastructure. It's money that government is going to spend anyway. The longer they wait, the more expensive it'll be... Plus, it's ain't going to be good for you if it's YOUR bridge that collapses. These are REAL jobs. That work will CREATE jobs in the cement business, rebar, steel, tools, trucks, petroleum, shoes, uniforms, and on and on...
Yes, it'll ADD to the deficit... Ok, we'll pay it BACK when things are rolling again... I agree with D1ck Cheney... Deficits don't matter.
excon
No wages=No demand=No growth.
So the real issue is putting money into real peoples hands in an honest way. Taxes alone won't do it. And no body spends on uncertainty that they won't have a permanent JOB/CAREER.
Steady INCOME=Certainty= Demand=GROWTH.
Keeps coming back to good paying jobs. Just like it always has through out our history. We can argue taxes after we get to working, and growing. Training, and education are some keys to pay attention to.
8 bucks an hour hardly meets that demand. For taxes, or growth, and does nothing for your confidence or needs.
You have to have more than a few bucks to buy gold, or anything else. Its not like there isn't enough work to do. Why aren't we doing it??
Sure that's a nice thought. But what is different then the last time they had those shovel ready jobs? They squandered billions. And what do we really have to show for it? That's why now more then ever we need the fair tax. As you have said it may take months to see the result. Right now with what this administration has done they are looking at years down the road before any sort of recovery can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So what is the better choice? Years or months? People know how to spend money. They do it when they have it. And when the certainty of the tax structure kicks in industry can reinvest in itself. That will create jobs and those jobs will bloom into others. WHo really pays coporate taxes anyway? It's the consumer. So if those are eliminated then that leaves room for spending on the business. That ball gets rolling. Also businesses will return to the U.S. as its profitable to do so again. It's a win win for everyone.
Months and years down the road. We heard that 5 years ago when the infrastructure for pipelines and drilling was blocked . Instead we invested a cool half billion in a "greens job "company who's execs plead the 5th before Congress last week.
Next you know we'll sink money in an 'InterContinental' Rail Road.
No, not squandered. The states sat on the money they got from the federal government or used it to pay their bills. The shovel-ready jobs that were listed for my state were never done because the state did something else with the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
It's like when I gave my poor friend money to buy food for her cats. She was so happy that she used the money to get a body part pierced instead.
Same thing with the banks. They are sitting on (i.e. investing) the money they were given to help with the mortgage situation.
The problem is that there was no accountability. The federal government trusted the states and the banks to do the right thing. They didn't.
How can they be sitting on the bailout ? Last I heard, TARP was paid back with interest with $20 billion in profit to taxpayers. Where is the money ? Why no accounting for the TARP money returned ?
BTW... I agree many states misappropriated the funds and added them to the general revenue. Did it make the states more financially sound ? No. All it did was delay the Wisconsin type debates a year.
Also don't bother answering my 1st question... the answer to that is that the banks paid back TARP with very generously borrowed Treasury notes.
Makes you wonder why defunct bridges and roads are NOT shovel ready when they have been in bad shape for years. I mean the one from Ohio to Kentucky has been talked about for 10 years.
I presume that would be the business of Ohio and Kentucky... just like the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority handles NY and NJ bridges.
They both want their bridges fixed, they said so, so whose stopping that from happening??
Not my problem... I am paying $12 to cross the George Washington Bridge . Let the users pay for the maintenance.
The truth is that the political ploy of the President of picking a bridge between Speaker Bonehead's and Sen McConnell's State is just that ;a ploy. It is the Brent Spence Bridge and it doesn't qualify . It has many good years left before any real repair is needed .
What they want to do is construct another bridge there to ease some congestion. That will happen in another 4 years according to the plans . So it is not one of those so called 'shovel ready' jobs the President is touting and would not get a dime of the next bucket list .
But it's good politics to have that photo op in the district of your political opponents ;so the truth be damned .
No worse than calling a fat cat a job creator, or a poor man a lazy bum, or a teacher greedy.
Zero for 3 if that is directed at me.
No not directed at you, Tom, but at the ones above us both who lie and play on us. For their own greed and purpose.
The Obama administration has finally found another way to create more jobs. Government bureaucrat jobs that is, and what's interesting is that even the EPA where these jobs would be added says the rules requiring 230,000 more people are '“absurd” in application and “impossible to administer”'.
Really? The private sector keeps bleeding jobs while the public sector added close to a million jobs from January 2008 to the middle of 2010, and we need another quarter million jobs to enforce "absurd" and impossible" rules that are probably going to cost more private sector jobs as businesses spend billions on struggling to comply.
You have got to be kidding me.
And speaking of " rules that are probably going to cost more private sector jobs as businesses spend billions on struggling to comply.
You have got to be kidding me.
And speaking of " rules, the administration is set to ban OTC asthma inhalers to save the planet.
Sigh...
You guys still have inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons... for inhalation? Weird. I guess this is another case of big pharma winning over the people... again.
What's wrong with power, and oil, and drug companies actually investing in clean, safe, effective technology? What's wrong with clean, air and water? For the taxes they pay, big business should guarantee safe and efficient medicines, and drugs, and power. Until then I suggest you police them, rather than trust them for doing the right thing.
Exxon hasn't cleaned up Alaska yet. Nor BP the Gulf. Until they do, I wouldn't give a rats patoot what they have to spend to protect us from their products. What they spend in lobbyist, and campaign contributions, can be used to pay for as many Environmental police as we need.
How's that for an offset. Sounds fair to me.
Why should they when we have enough oil under our own ground to last several hundred years... but OH... thats why Global Warming hoax was dreamed up... as another way to stick it to big oil.
Never mind the fact the Federal excise tax is magnitudes larger than the profit they make per gallon. But I don't see any outrage over how much the government is making off every gallon sold.
Why should there be outrage? They make big bucks and are subsidized by government. They make more money than anyone in the freakin' world, and you feel sorry for them?
Pretty obvious science AIN"T your strong suit. Or you have already sucked to many fumes. Come on guy, they spend big bucks investing in politicians and PACS, to get even more money, with no responsibility.
Here is where we agree . No energy company should get subsidies... be they oil companies ,or solar.
Oil companies have been around a long time, and can stand on their own, as will other alternative energy sources... eventually.
I know, I should have left it while we were in agreement. :( Sorry Tom.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 AM. |