Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pelosi On Unemployment Benefits, So Much For Paygo  
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

So an extension of unemployment benefits, which would not have been factored into what employers were paying when the workers were working, doesn't need to be paid for according to Minority Leader Pelosi. So much for that paygo philosophy she was touting in 2006.

While Congress may need to extend unemployment insurance, they do need to pay for it. If they can't come up with 45 billion in cuts then something is organizationally wrong in our government.

http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-unemplo...fits-not-paid-video-195214096.html

“I think that we must — we must — pass the unemployment insurance. I do not think it should be paid for because it is, again, it is something that people, that is paid into and now we should, for many reasons, not pay for it,” Pelosi said at the Capitol on Thursday.

So what happened to paygo?

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
While Congress may need to extend unemployment insurance, they do need to pay for it. If they can't come up with 45 billion in cuts then something is organizationally wrong in our government.

The need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits might well be related to the fact that the "job creators" are taking their money and running. They sure as hell have not been creating the jobs that the GOP politicians praise them for.

$45 Bilion in cuts (or $45 Billion in taxes, or a combination of both) might be found in the various loopholes in out tax system. Unfortunately the ones enjoying those loopholes are the ones with the lobbyists.

BTW, with no improvement on the FICA side it looks like you're headed for a return to normal FICA in just over 3 weeks.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1095 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
The need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits might well be related to the fact that the "job creators" are taking their money and running. They sure as hell have not been creating the jobs that the GOP politicians praise them for.

Oh yeah, it's been the poor and the government that have been creating the 150 million jobs currently in place  



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Oh yeah, it's been the poor and the government that have been creating the 150 million jobs currently in place

Let's go back to the start of job losses from the Great Recession. Some serious losses there, reversed to some degree when Obama took office. (That famous Bikini Chart)

As far as the government creating jobs, look around at the streets you drive on, the schools around your city, the police and fire and (sometimes) emergency medical services. Airports & ATC and all the other positions related to commercial airlines.

Then look at the jobs created by the military. Not just those in uniform, but all those who work on bases, or have custom from those bases keeping them profitable. (Look at the political efforts to keep a base open if you don't believe they generate jobs and prosperity.)

And then let's look at the suppliers and contractors for the military. Start with Boeing and go on down to the companies that make the cheap stuff, like pens and toilet paper.

And let's go look at Texas, where Perry (an advocate of smaller government) had the employment miracle. A few months ago (when Perry was close to the top of the candidates) the stats came out: Private employment lost jobs and public employment gained. Perry benefitted substantially from military related jobs and bases.

Even in little old TUL, our unemployment rate was low and that was greatly helped by the infrastructure work that has been going on.

Government motivated (and financed) Build Baby Build.

So take out all the government supported jobs (direct and indirect) and your150 Million takes a huge nose dive.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
The need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits might well be related to the fact that the "job creators" are taking their money and running. They sure as hell have not been creating the jobs that the GOP politicians praise them for.


Perhaps if the Sentate would pass a budget and get serious about tax reform those with the money would be more confident about starting or expanding a business. Right now unless you are in one of the golden industries, like solar or wind, investing money carries too much risk that the government will decide you are evil.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
$45 Bilion in cuts (or $45 Billion in taxes, or a combination of both) might be found in the various loopholes in out tax system. Unfortunately the ones enjoying those loopholes are the ones with the lobbyists.


Loopholes the GOP has consistently said they are willing to look at in conjunction with tax reform but the left refuses to consider unless taxes are raised on those job creators before anything else is done.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
BTW, with no improvement on the FICA side it looks like you're headed for a return to normal FICA in just over 3 weeks.


Which is actually a good thing since every dollar taken away from FICA now will have to be replaced later at a more expensive rate.

That program alone is an example of paygo gone completely awry. Considering it is supposed to be self sustaining and is about as far from it as you can get. Yet any attempt to get it back in line with self sustaining meets with nothing but fearmongering by the left.

Why Minority Leader Pelosi couldn't have spent a little more time figuring out how to pay for the extension boggles me.

[Edited 2011-12-09 10:51:45]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
As far as the government creating jobs, look around at the streets you drive on, the schools around your city, the police and fire and (sometimes) emergency medical services. Airports & ATC and all the other positions related to commercial airlines.

Then look at the jobs created by the military. Not just those in uniform, but all those who work on bases, or have custom from those bases keeping them profitable. (Look at the political efforts to keep a base open if you don't believe they generate jobs and prosperity.)

Ummm... Who pays for all that? You seem to think that the government gets its money from magic and hope and unicorn farts. Those are funds collected from taxes, and most of those taxes come from "the wealthy".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6728 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1015 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Then look at the jobs created by the military. Not just those in uniform, but all those who work on bases, or have custom from those bases keeping them profitable. (Look at the political efforts to keep a base open if you don't believe they generate jobs and prosperity.)

I''m somewhat surprized that you mention this, only from the point that in a lot of other threads, folks do not seem to understand why Republicans were so gung ho on maintaining military spending, democrats were so gung ho on cutting military budgets, war is secondary, jobs and wealth are the primary concerns.

Fundamentally I'm not sure I understand some of the Americans policies / beliefs on their budget, deficits and debt. Currently US officials are touring Europe pushing for a resolution to the Euro crises, all measures being discussed and implemented so far deal with drastic cuts in public spending (austerity measures), two governments have been changed and others are being bombarded, yet when the same fundamentals are pushed for in the US the supporters are derided to say the least. One can only kick the can down the road for so long.

The large defict program that the Republicans initially offered to the White House during the debt ceiling debacle must have had more that 45billion in loop hole closings, so why does the congress not simply pass a law closing 45billion in loop holes while they extend the payroll cut, add no additional tax increases or breaks to it and send it to the senate, surely a loop hole can be closed without having to raise taxes on the rich and increase revenues at the same time.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5249 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 998 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
The need for extending the unemployment insurance benefits might well be related to the fact that the "job creators" are taking their money and running. They sure as hell have not been creating the jobs that the GOP politicians praise them for.

$45 Bilion in cuts (or $45 Billion in taxes, or a combination of both) might be found in the various loopholes in out tax system. Unfortunately the ones enjoying those loopholes are the ones with the lobbyists.

BTW, with no improvement on the FICA side it looks like you're headed for a return to normal FICA in just over 3 weeks.

I am fine with FICA returning to normal, in fact it needs to returns to normal and now is as good a time as any. Just like the "Bush temporary tax cuts" need to end. We need to be sure to return to paying for whatever benefits we offer to citizens and if we are not willing to pay for them then we need to cut those benefits for people in the future. The people can plan for that if needed. We also need to end the current, apparently endless unemployment payments. We should have already passed something that cut them back at a consistent rate but it can be now.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Oh yeah, it's been the poor and the government that have been creating the 150 million jobs currently in place

The "rich" are not the job creators in the country, there is no evidence that show that they are. The population as a whole are the "job creators". The job creators are in fact the poor, the middle class primarily with the rich filling out a smaller portion of the job creation pie. Commerce and people buying things and using services are what create wealth in any country. Right now the poor and middle class are not feeling very confident and so are not spending and while the wealthy are still spending and contributing it is not enough to move things forward. As we can see.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
Ummm... Who pays for all that? You seem to think that the government gets its money from magic and hope and unicorn farts. Those are funds collected from taxes, and most of those taxes come from "the wealthy".

That this is the situation we find ourselves in is proof that we are managing our economy poorly and improperly. And if one thinks we should not "manage" (and P.S. unrestrained capitalism does not constitute "managing"), well you do not understand how money moves and what makes a healthy and vibrant society. The ability to move from class to class is key, as is the ability to get "rich", but you need to put rules in place that essentially maximize this "churn" of wealth and the wealthy. If you don't you will end up with a "wealthy class" like Mexico that does not change and the rest of the society suffers for it. It doesn't mean the money goes to the government but it can mean that the government claims more taxes (because when they do money is moved to avoid that).

The middle class needs to be "encouraged" and part of that is taxes that affect the money flow such that money is flowed back into the economy rather into taxes or the wealthy. Money must move but people hoard it to help their family and future generations, yet those beneficiaries are seldom ever wealth creators like those that created it. In fact the much maligned "poor" are often better at creating wealth if they have the opportunity. And this does not mean the government giving poor people handouts. It means jobs and making money move to where it creates jobs. And remember it was during the Reagan era that the poor were removed from the tax roles, relieved of paying into the system. Which I believe was one of the dumbest moves ever.

But the truth appears to be that the wealthy are not any more interested in creating jobs than the poor are in working in low wage, entry level, "back breaking" jobs.


Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 985 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
I''m somewhat surprized that you mention this, only from the point that in a lot of other threads, folks do not seem to understand why Republicans were so gung ho on maintaining military spending, democrats were so gung ho on cutting military budgets, war is secondary, jobs and wealth are the primary concerns.

At general glance it appears that we do have that Republican/Democrat split on military spending.

Until you are heading to cutting military spending, like a base closing or stopping a big contract.

Then you find that military spending cuts is at the top of the NIMBY pyramid. Democrats can be as aggressive as Republicans when it comes to keeping military related jobs in in their districts. That is why we had a base closing committee that took away the political games when we needed to bring down the military costs.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
so why does the congress not simply pass a law closing 45billion in loop holes while they extend the payroll cut, add no additional tax increases or breaks to it and send it to the senate, surely a loop hole can be closed without having to raise taxes on the rich and increase revenues at the same time.

The GOP won't do that because they are afraid the closed loopholes might impact their campaign contributors.

Instead they will be using the threat of denying that middle class relief to programs that are beneficial for wealthy companies and individuals. My bet is that the Koch Brothers could specify what is to be offered and the Tea Party will fight for it.

My preference is to let the GOP increase the FICA taxes and let the voters come to their own conclusions.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
I am fine with FICA returning to normal, in fact it needs to returns to normal and now is as good a time as any. Just like the "Bush temporary tax cuts" need to end.

Those tax breaks may need to end, but the economy cannot take a total hit in today's economy. We can take a step-by-step hit, though.

Reality is that the wife and I were able to raise and educate two kids without the GOP socialist handout, the Bush Tax Cuts or the reduction in FICA taxes. We did OK with all those higher taxes and limited government handouts and most people in the mid-level middle class and up.

Unfortunately we have moved away from building a strong middle class. Too many in the middle class have been pushed down while too few have moved up. And the middle class is shrinking. That scares the hell out of me.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
The "rich" are not the job creators in the country, there is no evidence that show that they are.

Ain't that the blood truth!

The term "job creators" is a tag used by GOP politicians when talking about wealthy individuals and companies. They keep using that tag, even though the "job creators" have been totally pathetic in creating jobs. Seems like eunuchs are more potent than those "job creators".


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 977 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
I''m somewhat surprized that you mention this, only from the point that in a lot of other threads, folks do not seem to understand why Republicans were so gung ho on maintaining military spending, democrats were so gung ho on cutting military budgets, war is secondary, jobs and wealth are the primary concerns.

No, for Democrats, CONTROL is the primary concern.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):

The "rich" are not the job creators in the country, there is no evidence that show that they are.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
Ain't that the blood truth!

The term "job creators" is a tag used by GOP politicians when talking about wealthy individuals and companies. They keep using that tag, even though the "job creators" have been totally pathetic in creating jobs. Seems like eunuchs are more potent than those "job creators".

Oh, brother...

Tell me, when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, eh?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5249 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 969 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
No, for Democrats, CONTROL is the primary concern.

And what is it for Republican's? Everyone seeking power wants "control".

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
Tell me, when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, eh?

When they bought a car part at the auto store I once worked for. When they bought remanufactured toner cartridges from the copier/printer service company I once worked for. Also when they by that TV "they can't afford" at Walmart (tell me, who do think shops at Walmart?), or buy gas for their car or go to the for-fee medical clinic or buy clothes for their kids or put money in their 401k at their work or buy food at the store or go to the indian casino or any number of other things that any person does.

Are you really that thick to think that "the poor" have no money or don't spend it or don't create jobs? (P.S. I know you are very smart and capable, not stupid.)

By the way, when was the last time "the rich" gave you a job? As a class they do not directly create as many jobs. They have money that is in the bank or investments that then get put into circulation when deemed wise but the only time any business is deemed wise to invest in is when customers go to that business and "the poor" make up a larger portion of those customers than "the rich". Go ahead research it.

"The poor" are enormously important to the economy and if you don't think so then you are part of the reason why the country is struggling right now because that line of though is leading you to make poor decisions on what the country needs to do. Yes "the poor" should be pay into taxes, no we should be constantly funding programs "on loan", without the current funds to pay for them but "the poor" are very important and contribute a lot to jobs creation.

Tugg

[Edited 2011-12-09 20:43:48]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 924 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 10):

And what is it for Republican's? Everyone seeking power wants "control".

Which is why conservatives (and the Founders of the nation) want limited government, with limited powers, limited control, and little opportunity for graft.

Quoting tugger (Reply 10):
When they bought a car part at the auto store I once worked for. When they bought remanufactured toner cartridges from the copier/printer service company I once worked for. Also when they by that TV "they can't afford" at Walmart (tell me, who do think shops at Walmart?), or buy gas for their car or go to the for-fee medical clinic or buy clothes for their kids or put money in their 401k at their work or buy food at the store or go to the indian casino or any number of other things that any person does.

Are you really that thick to think that "the poor" have no money or don't spend it or don't create jobs? (P.S. I know you are very smart and capable, not stupid.)

You are talking about consumption - a job creator to be sure, but on a very small scale. Hundreds of people have to buy that car part to justify a single job.

I'm talking about actual jobs. When was the last time a poor person told you, "I'm hiring you to work for me, full time, for X salary, long term."?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 922 times:

Why is it that Republicans are fine with spending trillions of $$$ for wars without ever paying for them with cuts elsewhere, but when Americans get laid off in the worst recession since the depression, those costs, while tiny by comparison, must be paid for? Hypocrisy, much?

[Edited 2011-12-10 06:57:10]

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 921 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
You are talking about consumption - a job creator to be sure, but on a very small scale. Hundreds of people have to buy that car part to justify a single job.

I'm talking about actual jobs. When was the last time a poor person told you, "I'm hiring you to work for me, full time, for X salary, long term."?

Consumption is not a small-scale job creator, it's one half of the job creation equation. No rich person is going to give people jobs just for the fun of it - if they do, they won't be rich for very long. They give people jobs because the market is there to support it. No market, no jobs. And in most industries, that market is largely middle-class or poor.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 896 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
No, for Democrats, CONTROL is the primary concern.

And the Republicans aren't?         

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
Tell me, when was the last time a poor person gave you a job, eh?

SInce I spent a lot of time in retailing, or working with retailers, it's pretty easy to understand the "poor" have been pretty reasonable in providing jobs. They obviously don't have the money to spend like the rich, but they still have some money and they do spend.

They also but gas for their car, helping build bridges and roads. Stuff like that. And their rent pays part of the property taxes that fund police, fire and education.

The problem we face TODAY is that the middle class has been hit hard, moving more into your "poor" group. They still spend, but their spending is diminished, which does cut back on employment. And your wonderful job creators have been pathetic in creating replacements for those lost jobs.

Guess "job creators" is just a funny word for billionaires.  


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5249 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 889 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
I'm talking about actual jobs. When was the last time a poor person told you, "I'm hiring you to work for me, full time, for X salary, long term."?

And when was the last time a "rich person" said that to you, directly, as they themselves hired you for a job for them?

Versus the fact that you were hired by a company that is made up of all strata of rich, poor, and middle class people? The vast majority of jobs are created by companies, small and large, that only exist because of consumption. And consumption is the largest job creator in the USA, not a small scale at all as you suggest.

You do realize that "poor people" make up between 15% to 40% of the USA population don't you?

The entire problem is the increasing stratification of income. In any society the greatest benefit is derived when the greatest amount of money is controlled by the greatest number of people. That doesn't mean government hand outs but it can means tax strategies where you increase tax rates in order to have people decide to do other things with their money in order to avoid having to pay it in taxes.

People seem to forget this, that just raising taxes does not exactly and directly increase the amount of money
taken in by the governing authority. When taxes go up, those that must pay the taxes do other things with their money in order to avoid the taxers. A wise taxation policy will move money, via tax rules, to where it enters back into society and where it create a situation where the greatest amount of money possible is controlled by the greatest number of people.

Of course I am not suggesting that the current legislators can create wise money policies. They are too much "for themselves", and too beholden to political partisanship and media sound-bites and special interests to do that.

I have said it many time before, the tax structure and financial rules that were in place for the end of the Reagan era through Clinton seems to me to have been the best one recently, as we thrived as a nation. This is of course over-simplified for arguments sake. Higher taxes and strong rules on financial transactions and institutions does not mean that job or an economy suffers.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 876 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
The GOP won't do that because they are afraid the closed loopholes might impact their campaign contributors.

Since they have twice offered them up in debt reduction talks that statement is false.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
My preference is to let the GOP increase the FICA taxes and let the voters come to their own conclusions.

So is mine. When it is explained that we are just making SS finances more of a mess than they already are, most reasonable people will agree.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
Those tax breaks may need to end, but the economy cannot take a total hit in today's economy. We can take a step-by-step hit, though

Unless of course we are talking about "rich" people, in that case we can tax them into the poor house right?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
We did OK with all those higher taxes and limited government handouts and most people in the mid-level middle class and up.

You did, but there was an ever growing entitlement class growing all around you. The last time they were checked was during the Clinton Presidency when welfare reform was enacted.

Quoting tugger (Reply 10):
Are you really that thick to think that "the poor" have no money or don't spend it or don't create jobs? (P.S. I know you are very smart and capable, not stupid.)

Then Ken and Seb146 have been bashing the wrong crowd all along. We should blame those poor people for not spending more of their government handouts.   

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 12):
Why is it that Republicans are fine with spending trillions of $$$ for wars without ever paying for them with cuts elsewhere

I don't know, why not hold a seance and ask Wilson, FDR, Truman, or Johnson? Or better yet, find a place in a rope line and ask President Clinton.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Consumption is not a small-scale job creator, it's one half of the job creation equation.

Which means part of the other vital half is investment in job creation and poor people don't do that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
And in most industries, that market is largely middle-class or poor.

?? I guess that depends on what "industry" you are talking about. I will agree that most small businesses are retail in nature and thus deal with mostly middle class and poor but "industry" such as heavy or mining employ far more middle class and poor than they service.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
They also but gas for their car, helping build bridges and roads.

I thought SS trust fund money paid for all those roads and bridges, that is what you have claimed in the past.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
And their rent pays part of the property taxes that fund police, fire and education.

Since a good part of their rent is government assistance that is government spending on government.

There is a reason that 7 out of 10 of the richest counties in per capita income are located right around Washington D.C. and it has to do with rich people creating jobs with other peoples money. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for people like Pelosi to find spending cuts to offset new spending like ordinary business owners and people do.


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21088 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 873 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Which means part of the other vital half is investment in job creation and poor people don't do that.

This is true. And that's why we have to take their interests into account as well. But doing that at the expense of the people who actually buy the stuff isn't the answer - it's counterproductive.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
I guess that depends on what "industry" you are talking about. I will agree that most small businesses are retail in nature and thus deal with mostly middle class and poor but "industry" such as heavy or mining employ far more middle class and poor than they service.

Which is why I said most. And, of course, the US economy has been moving away from heavy industry and mining for some time.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 861 times:

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Since they have twice offered them up in debt reduction talks that statement is false.

They were talking about YOUR loopholes, not the loopholes for the very wealthy.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Unless of course we are talking about "rich" people, in that case we can tax them into the poor house right?
Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
You did, but there was an ever growing entitlement class growing all around you.

It's called the shrinkage of the middle class that used to be the driving factor in our economy.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
The last time they were checked was during the Clinton Presidency when welfare reform was enacted.

And then we had Bush/Cheney come in and phuck everything totally up. A 10 year Totally Unnecessary War on the credit card, unaffordable tax cuts, all kinds of really stupid games. Maybe we should go back to the Clinton Years.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
I don't know, why not hold a seance and ask Wilson, FDR, Truman, or Johnson?

My parents were pretty clear in discussing the shortages in WW II. It wasn't the Guns & Butter years at all.

The Vietnam War was different in that those were the Guns & Butter Years. I thought we had learned that lesson, but here comes Bush & Cheney with their new approach: Guns & Butter AND Cake. All on the credit card.

We don't need a seance to figure out that FUBAR: we just need to look at the flakes who did it - they are still alive!

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
I thought SS trust fund money paid for all those roads and bridges, that is what you have claimed in the past.

We're a big country with a lot of roads. Especially since we have a poor public transport system when compared to other countries.

Federal investments (including loans from the Social Security Trust Fund) pay a hunk, petrol and other taxes pay some and toll roads pay part.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Since a good part of their rent is government assistance that is government spending on government.

Actually there will be a lot of people who have been kicked out of the middle class who still pay their own rent. Same with people who are working hard to get into that disappearing middle class, and with young people getting started.

When I was in the Navy and just married we were on a thin wicket, but didn't get any welfare - just the pathetic pay from the Navy. (That was before the all volunteer military.)

So your assumption of "the poor" is somewhat wrong. No surprise there.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 861 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
it's counterproductive

Since the investment money for the product must come before the consumption of the product, I would disagree.

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
Which is why I said most. And, of course, the US economy has been moving away from heavy industry and mining for some time.

And these are the types of industries that during the 50's to the 70's provided the basis for the "middle class" worker. A worker without a full college degree but trained in a trade or put to work on an assembly line. They are the exact type of job the left claims we need to recreate to build the middle class.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5249 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 844 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Which is why conservatives (and the Founders of the nation) want limited government, with limited powers, limited control, and little opportunity for graft.

True, however you are specifically speaking to a central.federal government. But it also does not rule out a strong central government. And actually a strong government controlled by the people also helps control graft.

The problem right now is that the people have been lead to believe that "the government" is something separate from themselves. Also business, rather than individual people, has a greater influence on the government nowadays. Much as some may like to state it, corporations are not "people" they are tax-classification based creations of the state not individuals (and yes this goes for any sustained self-interested entity, such as unions, as well).

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Since they have twice offered them up in debt reduction talks that statement is false.

The question is what else was required in those offers for the reduction to occur? If it is something that is completely unpalatable to those that you are making the offer to, and you are not willing to make any compromise on your offer, well then it is not really a valid offer.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
My preference is to let the GOP increase the FICA taxes and let the voters come to their own conclusions.

So is mine. When it is explained that we are just making SS finances more of a mess than they already are, most reasonable people will agree.

  
Anything offer must be paid for and funded. Short term emergency relief is fine occasionally but it has become continuously and that is unsustainable and wrong. And no, one group can not be the sole target. All must share the burden.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Unless of course we are talking about "rich" people, in that case we can tax them into the poor house right?

Tell us when that has actually ever happened in the USA? It is a line that is often thrown out but has NEVER happened. I have gotten much richer over my lifetime and have had to pay much more in taxes, yet I am still very well off and in fact pay a lower overall percentage rate in taxes. Do I want to pay more taxes than I have to? No. But I am willing to pay the taxes needed to ensure a healthy and vibrant nation. Taxes are not the cause of this nations problems, the imbalance between revenues and expenses is.

Rich people being made poor by taxes just simply does not happen.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Then Ken and Seb146 have been bashing the wrong crowd all along. We should blame those poor people for not spending more of their government handouts.

The poorest people do spend all of their "government handouts". Or do you not understand that that is one of the criteria of being poor? That you spend everything that you have in order to get by.

And by the way, what do you consider a government handout? Perhaps $7 odd trillion in aid and assistance given to financial institutions to ensure their investments and investors do not go belly up? Government handouts come ion all shapes and sizes and fare given to all classes of people. However it is a known fact that those "handouts" that go to the very poor go right back into the economy. It still isn't a good way of doing things as recently we have been taking on debt to provide them but they do get spent and go into the economy.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Which means part of the other vital half is investment in job creation and poor people don't do that.

Again, you are wrong. The poor do allow for investment in job creation.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
?? I guess that depends on what "industry" you are talking about. I will agree that most small businesses are retail in nature and thus deal with mostly middle class and poor but "industry" such as heavy or mining employ far more middle class and poor than they service.

And those employed poor people (which most poor people are) go out and spend their wages and create more industry. Dollar for dollar, the poor create more commerce than the wealthy as they spend more of their money and thereby create more jobs. The wealthy stash a portion of their money to spend in the future and that removes the money from the immediate economy. That money is important and needed but is not "better" than the money that the poor spend at a business that allows that business to grow and expand.


Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
Since a good part of their rent is government assistance that is government spending on government.

Prove that. That is simply false, most poor people do not have their rent paid for by the government nor receive support for their rent. Some do yes, but a small portion.

Quoting dxing (Reply 16):
There is a reason that 7 out of 10 of the richest counties in per capita income are located right around Washington D.C. and it has to do with rich people creating jobs with other peoples money. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for people like Pelosi to find spending cuts to offset new spending like ordinary business owners and people do.

It has to do with the fact the employees tend to live around their companies, and a companies headquarters tends to have the highest paid employees. Like Seattle benefits from having Microsoft's headquarters located there and Cuppertino benefits from having Apple's headquarters there, the region around Washington DC benefits from having the USA 's "headquarters" there.

I personally think that something should be done to better distribute this around to the home states of the money that is brought in. I know for a fact that California could really use the extra money it sends to Washington to be spent by others.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
And then we had Bush/Cheney come in and phuck everything totally up. A 10 year Totally Unnecessary War on the credit card, unaffordable tax cuts, all kinds of really stupid games. Maybe we should go back to the Clinton Years.

The war should have been funded by War Bonds. If it was a "good war" it would widely supported and the bonds would be bought. Yes it is another form of government debt but it allows those that support the war to pay to support it up front and gives an indication of how support the effort is.

Actually this would be a great "capitalist" method of deciding what wars to fight, wars that were good investments would be funded, those that weren't would "sell" and get funded.

Quoting dxing (Reply 19):
Since the investment money for the product must come before the consumption of the product, I would disagree.

And I will disagree with you. This is a classic Chicken and Egg situation. One cannot occur without the other. The question is where does the process get started? Right now investment is not occurring BECAUSE people are not spending. The more people spend the more investors will be willing to invest. This is why I disagree with you and why I think your statement is wrong.

Quoting dxing (Reply 19):
And these are the types of industries that during the 50's to the 70's provided the basis for the "middle class" worker. A worker without a full college degree but trained in a trade or put to work on an assembly line. They are the exact type of job the left claims we need to recreate to build the middle class.

Yes, however the "job creators", by your definition investors and the wealthy, have been for years moving these jobs overseas to lower labor and business cost regions by moving the money they invest to these regions to take advantage of the costs. Not a bad thing per se but a fact and something that tax policy could address.


Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 825 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
They were talking about YOUR loopholes, not the loopholes for the very wealthy.


No, they were talking about the loopholes that the President had suggested as well as others.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
It's called the shrinkage of the middle class that used to be the driving factor in our economy.


No, it's called a populace that has discovered over time all the government handouts that are available to them. From farm subsidies to food stamps and on and on. A portion of the population has discovered they don't have to work hard to get ahead, they can sit back and just wait for the check to arrive in the mail.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
10 year Totally Unnecessary War on the credit card, unaffordable tax cuts, all kinds of really stupid games. Maybe we should go back to the Clinton Years.


Ok, which part? 91-93 where the government was continuing to spend beyond its means or 94-00 where the government started to live within its means via things like welfare reform, reducing the military, and cuts in budget increases (very few programs have seen an actual "cut" for as long as I can remember) and showed the budget could be balanced through reduced spending?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
My parents were pretty clear in discussing the shortages in WW II. It wasn't the Guns & Butter years at all.


Check the debt in 1946.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The Vietnam War was different in that those were the Guns & Butter Years. I thought we had learned that lesson


Now there is a stunning admission.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
We don't need a seance to figure out that FUBAR


No we don't, we can show the President just what we think of his spending habits that have rung up the same amount of debt in 4 years as the previous President rung up in 8. All the while presiding over the worst economic recovery since the depression. At least he can claim to have that in common with President Roosevelt.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
Federal investments (including loans from the Social Security Trust Fund)


There is no such think as a "loan" from the Social Security Trust fund. It is simply moving public money from one column to another.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
Actually there will be a lot of people who have been kicked out of the middle class who still pay their own rent.


If you are in section 8 (income controlled housing) you still have to pay a portion of your rent.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
So your assumption of "the poor" is somewhat wrong. No surprise there


No, it's pretty much dead on.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Taxes are not the cause of this nations problems, the imbalance between revenues and expenses is.


But raising taxes is not the sole answer. Reforming the tax system, reducing spending, and reforming the entitlement programs are. You could tax all the wealthy at 100% and still not make up the difference between revenues and spending. The tax code needs a reform, want to tax people like Warren Buffet at a higher rate? Eliminate the allowance that allows their pay to be hidden in stock options which are then taxed at the capital gains rate. Do not eliminate the capital gains rate altogether because many middle class individual are depending on that income in their retirement. Eliminate loopholes and then readjust the rate. This is not new, it's been tried before and it worked.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The question is what else was required in those offers for the reduction to occur? If it is something that is completely unpalatable to those that you are making the offer to, and you are not willing to make any compromise on your offer, well then it is not really a valid offer.


The left would never agree to any program that did not include raising rates without tax reform. They are simply fixated on raising more revenue with cuts to come in some future years. We've tried that several times and it fails everytime it's tried. We are at a point we cannot afford to try it again.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Tell us when that has actually ever happened in the USA? It is a line that is often thrown out but has NEVER happened.


Thank goodness we have not gotten that dumb as a society yet.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The poorest people do spend all of their "government handouts". Or do you not understand that that is one of the criteria of being poor? That you spend everything that you have in order to get by.


Then you've just proved my point that spending by the "poor" and the middle class cannot in and of itself fund economic expansion.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Perhaps $7 odd trillion in aid and assistance given to financial institutions to ensure their investments and investors do not go belly up?


It was not "given" but "forced" on many of those institutions. When they tried to pay it back early the President refused to take it. It was not necessary and in the end was repaid.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Again, you are wrong. The poor do allow for investment in job creation.


You'll have to prove that because if it were true in any large sense the economy would be recovering, not remaining stagnet as it is.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
And those employed poor people (which most poor people are) go out and spend their wages and create more industry. Dollar for dollar,


No, as described above by Dreadnought, in order for one job to be created many many of one item have to be purchased. And that just keeps the line alive, it does not "create" extra jobs.

Quoting dxing (Reply 19):
Prove that.


Any handout they get, food stamps, medicaid, helps to pay their rent which, in the context that Ken was talking about helps pay their rent and thus property tax which pays for local police, fire, and other public services. It is government sustaining government no matter how you want to slice it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
That is simply false, most poor people do not have their rent paid for by the government nor receive support for their rent. Some do yes, but a small portion.


If they receive any type of assistance then that helps to have their rent paid for as it frees money to do just that. Since the largest percentage of persons in this country hstory are on food stamps alone, not to mention unemployment, medicaid, and other types of assistance far more than a "small" portion are included.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
It has to do with the fact the employees tend to live around their companies,


It has to do with the fact that the government feels that it is well within its bounds to take whatever they feel is justified. If it can't take enough it has the power to print more money to satisfy itself. What private or public corporation can claim that? What private or public corporation can continue to borrow money regardless of their debt as the government does?

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The war should have been funded by War Bonds


That's an idea, or specific tax to be ended when the war was paid for.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
And I will disagree with you. This is a classic Chicken and Egg situation. One cannot occur without the other. The question is where does the process get started? Right now investment is not occurring BECAUSE people are not spending.


Investment is not happening because in large part investors are unsure of a number of things not necessarily limited to this country. But in part the administration has made it more difficult for someone to believe that investing in a small business or large will generate a return. There is simply a lack of confidence in the current administrations policies as well as the treasury departments.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Yes, however the "job creators", by your definition investors and the wealthy, have been for years moving these jobs overseas to lower labor and business cost regions by moving the money they invest to these regions to take advantage of the costs. Not a bad thing per se but a fact and something that tax policy could address.


Correct, tax policy could address this, if one segment of the government did not see every industry as a cash cow waiting to be plundered. Minority leader Pelosi, in her lack of providing for a plan to pay for extended unemployment benefits shows this. As I said, so much for paygo.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 813 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
True, however you are specifically speaking to a central.federal government. But it also does not rule out a strong central government. And actually a strong government controlled by the people also helps control graft.

Tell that to the citizens of strong-state nations such as the USSR, China, Vietnam etc. Power corrupts. Which follows is that the lack of power removes the opportunity for corruption.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The problem right now is that the people have been lead to believe that "the government" is something separate from themselves.

That's just nature. Ever work for a big multinational corporation? You have the same thing, where the people at the top (and I'm not just talking about the top executives, but the hundreds of minions and bureaucrats that surround them) have their own concerns and demands that seem completely divorced from the concerns of the local offices that actually have to deal with the customer. Useless reporting, for example, which was deemed a good idea a decade ago by some forgotten analyst who has since moved on, which nobody reads anymore but is still on the "Required" list.

My company (which is small - less than 50 people) has a whole department dedicated to regulatory compliance. Several people whose full-time job is to fill out forms telling the government about what we are up to. That is ridiculous! And it is a drain on our business. We have turned down many opportunities that would have allowed our company to grow but someone pointed out that our regulatory costs would increase.

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
Much as some may like to state it, corporations are not "people" they are tax-classification based creations of the state not individuals

Creations of the state? They may be registered by the state, but a company is nothing more or less than a voluntary association of people who decided to work together. The state has nothing to do with that concept.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8044 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 754 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 20):
The war should have been funded by War Bonds.

We should never have gone into the Bush Cheney (or Cheney Bush) Ego/Oil WEar.

It was the most horrid decision by any president in my life time.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
No, it's called a populace that has discovered over time all the government handouts that are available to them.

The middle class that has taken a pretty stiff beating from conservatives all these years while the spread between the wealthy and the average American has grown larger and larger.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
Ok, which part? 91-93 where the government was continuing to spend beyond its means or 94-00 where the government started to live within its means via things like welfare reform, reducing the military, and cuts in budget increases

Pick any time during the Clinton Years and we didn't have a Great Recession. Ot the Guns & Butter & CAKE Mentality of the Bush Cheney Years.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
Check the debt in 1946.
Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
Now there is a stunning admission.

Not really.

Take a look at those years.

Then look at the Bush Cheney Years.

Guns & Butter & Cake,

Guess what the Cake is for.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
No we don't, we can show the President just what we think of his spending habits that have rung up the same amount of debt in 4 years as the previous President rung up in 8.
Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
All the while presiding over the worst economic recovery since the depression.

You seemed surprise. You keep forgetting that the Bush Cheney Years left us with the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I guess you are still surprised that it has been caused The Great Recession.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
If you are in section 8 (income controlled housing) you still have to pay a portion of your rent.

What has that got to do with the price of Rice in Italy?

Believe it or not there are a lot of people on thin incomes who are not covered by government payments.

Quoting dxing (Reply 21):
No, it's pretty much dead on.

Not a chance.

Like you missed Willard talking yesterday about his father being poor?

And, of course, you will work hard to avoid thinking about the middle class who has been pushed into lower incomes because of the Glorious Bush Cheney Years and their Great Recession.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 739 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The Vietnam War was different in that those were the Guns & Butter Years. I thought we had learned that lesson, but here comes Bush & Cheney with their new approach: Guns & Butter AND Cake. All on the credit card.

Nobody made millions of people live beyond their means. Nobody made them buy things they didn't need that they couldn't afford using credit cards with 20+% interest rate. Nobody MADE people sign ARMs. Nobody, and certainly not any President.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Pick any time during the Clinton Years and we didn't have a Great Recession. Ot the Guns & Butter & CAKE Mentality of the Bush Cheney Years.

Policies made during the Clinton administration certainly contributed to the problem, see the Housing Bubble including but not limited to: Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Commodities and Futures Reorganizations Act, and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. There was also the dotcom bubble burst that rang in the decade The "Great Recession" is not the sole responsibility of the Bush administration.


User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 732 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
The middle class that has taken a pretty stiff beating from conservatives all these years while the spread between the wealthy and the average American has grown larger and larger.

Ok, has inflation been ridiculously low from 2000 on? How much has the price of a loaf of bread gone up? Just because more people are rich has nothing to do there being more of them or the spread between them and the middle class. Again, in a closed economic loop that would be bad but ours is anything but closed as a person with a good idea and the drive to see it through can become wealthy. That is unless it deals with fossil fuel, like in a pipeline, and then he'll shut you down as quick as he can.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Pick any time during the Clinton Years and we didn't have a Great Recession

So you are admitting that the budget can be balanced by not only taxing, but by cutting entitlement programs (welfare reform) and discretionary spending (military). Again, a stunning admission if so. When can we expect to see your ideas on SS and medicare reform?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Then look at the Bush Cheney Years

Then look at President Obama's administration. It will have racked up as much spending in 4 years as the Bush administration did in 8 and what have we got to show for it? Unemployment still hovering around 9%, a credit rating that has been degraded, and a President that won't take any responsibility for any of it, it's all the "wealthy's" fault since they don't want to pay their "fair" share. Of course he never mentions the fact that even if we went to the tax rate that the President suggests it would only reduce the current deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1.2 trillion.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
You seemed surprise. You keep forgetting that the Bush Cheney Years left us with the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And I don't have to look far to see that President Obama has left us in the worst economic recovery since the depression, a trait he shares with his idol FDR. Think a world war will come along to save him?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Believe it or not there are a lot of people on thin incomes who are not covered by government payments.

If they are getting food stamps, medicaid, SSDI, or assistance from any other number of federal programs that assistance is helping to defer their rent. No way around that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
And, of course, you will work hard to avoid thinking about the middle class who has been pushed into lower incomes because of the Glorious Bush Cheney Years and their Great Recession.

And who are being held hostage there by a President that refuses to stop spending and regulating. There's a big reason he goes around blaming the rich and now the job creators, he hasn't helped anyone create any jobs (either in office or out) and no one is going to get very rich under his reign. Unless of course you're a BFF with a solar company that needs a loan.

So much for paygo under this administration. I think I can understand why Pelosi didn't bother to try and find cuts to offset further unemployment benefits, the White House would have put up a fuss.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
So Much For Relaxed Scandinavian Sexual Attitudes posted Wed Dec 31 2008 20:29:20 by Mham001
So Much For Giving Gift Cards posted Mon Mar 3 2008 18:16:21 by RJdxer
So Much For Tupper Ware Parties posted Sat Mar 3 2007 03:01:02 by ANCFlyer
So Much For Kicking Halliburton Around. posted Wed Feb 28 2007 14:53:51 by RJdxer
So Much For Close USC Wins... posted Sun Nov 26 2006 05:35:02 by JpetekYXMD80
So Much For Arkansas Playing Ohio State... posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:23:30 by Falcon84
So Much For Louisville's National Title Hopes posted Fri Nov 10 2006 05:25:20 by Falcon84
So Much For Hamas posted Wed Jun 28 2006 03:44:10 by L-188
Well So Much For That... posted Tue Oct 11 2005 21:22:03 by Pilot kaz
So Much For Mercedes Benz Quality/Customer Service posted Mon Feb 14 2005 16:57:02 by Sabena332