[paraclete]

Rebating tax won't get you out of your problem. What it might do is buy more Chinese goods.

[smoothy]

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..

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[talaniman]

Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.

[paraclete]

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 have

[speechlesstx]

Well we already know that Republicans don't want the unemployed to get jobs. They want more poor people.

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.

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.

[excon]

Really Tal? Republicans want everyone to have conditions favorable to being successful and self-supporting.

Hello again, Steve:

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

[talaniman]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

[excon]

Hello tal:

I know I just gave you one, but I CAN'T stifle myself..

**greenie**

excon

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

You already have a right to hire whomever you want.

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.

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.

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.

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"!!

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!

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.

And Bush warned that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble what, 17 times and Dems said there was NOTHING wrong them.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

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

Oh, let's go to what Obama said in 2008:

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.

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."

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?

[paraclete]

Oh, let's go to what Obama said in 2008:



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."

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.

Don't argue against more tax, argue for greater transparency and effective use of funds.

[cdad]

. If you or anyoneelse truely 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.

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.

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

[paraclete]

I do believe it. And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. Its 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.

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.

Where did they study this marvel of modern economics, in the bottom of a glass? Sounds like an idea some think tank thought up

[excon]

And I would like to see a zero tax for companies. Its 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.

Hello again, dad:

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

[paraclete]

Hello again, dad:

I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not gonna 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.

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

[talaniman]

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!

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

I've studied it too. No MATTER how low my taxes are, if I don't have DEMAND for my product, I'm not gonna hire anybody.... That's just so. What is it about supply and demand that right wingers don't understand?'

excon

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 ?