Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

When taxes are raised on the middle class and poor then economy contracts. When raised on the rich and corporations the economy grows and the deficit shrinks. [/quote]

Then we can stop all this needless debate. Obama just raised taxes on the job creators by about 5% let’s just sit back wait say one year and see if you’re correct.

What you say is true. But what about small business which most are “S” and “LLC” corporations. Their income is taxes as if it were personal income. And keep in mind that about 65% of all new hires are from small business. The tax hike is going to hurt them and in turn hurt the economy. Let’s check back a year from today and see who is correct.

Yeah, good point why should the people who earned their money have the right to give it to whomever they want upon passing. What a crazy thought!

LOL…Socialism is very near my friends.[/quote]
Socialism is far away so relax.

The tax hike needs to be enough of a stimulus. Is it? I don’t know. When the stimulus package was passed it helped a bit but wasn’t large enough to do what was needed considering the depth of the recession.

Bottom line: Cutting taxes on the rich is not an effective way to stimulate an economy. This has been proven in the last 12 years. If it were true this country would be drowning in jobs but it sits at a level of high unemployment. PROOF! But people who believe the opposite are to blind to see because of their ideology because that means more to them vs. the truth and evidence.

202

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[

Clinton raised taxes and lowered the debt. So what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

He did this during a healthy economy. Different times call for different measures. By the way in case you have not heard Bill Clinton himself said that he would not raise taxes on the job creators during such a slow recovery. Obama and his team immediately summoned ole’ Bill to the White House after he said this.

Here’s the problem with that one chief. Tax Joe Smith one hundred bucks more and 70 cents goes to hire new government stooges to administer the program and 30 cents gets into the hands of the people who need it (or less). Wouldn’t you say that’s a very poor way to improve the economy? But a great way to grow the government which in turn needs even more money from Joe?

Good question and one that the average American does not understand. Buffett gets his income through investments which (were) taxed at the rate of 15%, it’s called capital gains tax (as you know). He is being taxed again on money that he invested but at a lower rate than income tax rates. However, what about the millions of small businesses that are taxed at personal income levels? They are getting hit with a 5% tax hike. How is that appropriate during a recovery? It’s almost like Obama is trying to fail.

[quote]All loopholes should be closed!
[/quote]

I totally agree with you on this one. Close every loophole and then lower taxes for all Americans!

203

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334549/kindly-note-impending-bankruptcy-mark-steyn#

Best snippets below:

The problem facing the United States government is that it spends over a trillion dollars a year that it doesn?t have. If you want to make that number go away, you need either to reduce spending or to increase revenue?.

We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of one percent?.

Yet Obama now wishes ?the rich? to pay their ?fair share? ? presumably 80 or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in the New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year?s federal deficit. And after that you?re back to square one. It?s not that ?the rich? aren?t paying their ?fair share,? it?s that America isn?t. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it?s not willing to pay for.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books ? in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities ? just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed. If you don?t want that, you need to cut spending ? like Harry Reid?s been doing. ?Now remember, we?ve already done more than a billion dollars? worth of cuts,? he bragged the other day. ?So we need to get some credit for that.? Wow! A billion dollars? worth of cuts! Washington borrows $188 million every hour. So, if Reid took over five hours to negotiate those ?cuts,? it was a complete waste of time. So are most of the ?plans.? Any ?debt-reduction plan? that doesn?t address at least $1.3 trillion a year is, in fact, a debt-increase plan.

EDIT–It should be noted that I am not a mark steyn fan, inasmuch as I view many things he says as, shall we say, sensationalist (“After America: Get ready for Armageddon”. I mean, really?? That’s the title you came up with?). However, he has a good grasp of this subject.

204

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[

Clinton raised taxes and lowered the debt. So what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

He did this during a healthy economy. Different times call for different measures. By the way in case you have not heard Bill Clinton himself said that he would not raise taxes on the job creators during such a slow recovery. Obama and his team immediately summoned ole’ Bill to the White House after he said this.

Here’s the problem with that one chief. Tax Joe Smith one hundred bucks more and 70 cents goes to hire new government stooges to administer the program and 30 cents gets into the hands of the people who need it (or less). Wouldn’t you say that’s a very poor way to improve the economy? But a great way to grow the government which in turn needs even more money from Joe?

Good question and one that the average American does not understand. Buffett gets his income through investments which (were) taxed at the rate of 15%, it’s called capital gains tax (as you know). He is being taxed again on money that he invested but at a lower rate than income tax rates. However, what about the millions of small businesses that are taxed at personal income levels? They are getting hit with a 5% tax hike. How is that appropriate during a recovery? It’s almost like Obama is trying to fail.

[quote]All loopholes should be closed!
[/quote]

I totally agree with you on this one. Close every loophole and then lower taxes for all Americans!
[/quote]
The economy was healthy because of the Clinton economic team. He didn’t experience a great economy because of luck and tax rate drops.

Obama’s economic team are the same jerk-offs who were responsible for the economic meltdown from the Bush admin. Incidently Obama has had more hold overs from the previous admin than any other President. So if he is a so called socialist he is certainly not doing a good job.

I do not believe your numbers with regards to the breakdown in percentages for government jobs. There is a huge need for infrastructure projects in the U.S. that could employ thousands of people and help to get this country functioning better. Which would in turn be a benefit to the majority of the population. Instead of paying out unemployment why not put these people to work to help create something that is a benefit to all?

Also I know you are fond of calling Obama a socialist for one reason being the healthcare issue. However Nixon was to the left of Obama on healthcare and you wouldn’t call him a socialist, would you? You ought to revisit your thoughts on a President who governs like a moderate Republican instead of calling him a socialist.

205

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]

So, in your infinite wisdom have decided that it’s OK to steal money from people who earn — EARN — more than $450,000 because they don’t share your priorities?

Well, I think people don’t need more than $30,000. We need to steal anything more than that and give it to people who don’t work as hard! You don’t need a car! You can take a bus!

++++++++

Reagarding why this is unfair:

Now, I made way more than $450K in 2012. But in some years I’ve made nothing — because I own a business and get money when it’s profitable. The result of this heavily-indexed income schedule is to fuck me because my income falls heavily into high-tax brackets.

For example, I might make ---- on an annualized basis ---- $450K or whatever, but it’s come in 0 in 2011, 0 in 2012, and $1350K in 2013.

In short, business owners that get “lump” payments like that are screwed because huge amounts of income are taxed in the highest bracket.

That’s bullshit, and this change only makes it more unfair.

+++++++++++++++++++

Now, regarding “misplaced priorities,” I am a single (albeit engaged) guy, served my country honorably, no children. I’d like to save and invest a fuckload bunch of money before I have kids so I take it easier and not be my mom and step-dad who worked 7 to 7 6 days a week to feed 5 kids.

I also employ probably 200 guys off my reservation (yeah, reservation, I’m Apache). My business gives most of them — most not HS grads — an honest, hard, job that pulls in about $75 to 125K per year for most of them. They support their families, have self-respect, and fucking do something worthwhile.

Sorry, that are such shitty priorities to you.

++++++++++++++++

Finally, I do oppose about 99% of government social programs. Now, not because I hate poor people. I was a poor person. I give 10% of my net income to local charities, every year, and have since I was a Private First Class.

I hate government social programs because only pennies of the dollars spent actually goes to the people, and the little that does get there turns people into useless sacks of shit that sit around waiting for their next check ---- I know this, too, because our reservation is full of such useless fucks.

206

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]

So, in your infinite wisdom have decided that it’s OK to steal money from people who earn — EARN — more than $450,000 because they don’t share your priorities?

Well, I think people don’t need more than $30,000. We need to steal anything more than that and give it to people who don’t work as hard! You don’t need a car! You can take a bus!

++++++++

Reagarding why this is unfair:

Now, I made way more than $450K in 2012. But in some years I’ve made nothing — because I own a business and get money when it’s profitable. The result of this heavily-indexed income schedule is to fuck me because my income falls heavily into high-tax brackets.

For example, I might make ---- on an annualized basis ---- $450K or whatever, but it’s come in 0 in 2011, 0 in 2012, and $1350K in 2013.

In short, business owners that get “lump” payments like that are screwed because huge amounts of income are taxed in the highest bracket.

That’s bullshit, and this change only makes it more unfair.

+++++++++++++++++++

Now, regarding “misplaced priorities,” I am a single (albeit engaged) guy, served my country honorably, no children. I’d like to save and invest a fuckload bunch of money before I have kids so I take it easier and not be my mom and step-dad who worked 7 to 7 6 days a week to feed 5 kids.

I also employ probably 200 guys off my reservation (yeah, reservation, I’m Apache). My business gives most of them — most not HS grads — an honest, hard, job that pulls in about $75 to 125K per year for most of them. They support their families, have self-respect, and fucking do something worthwhile.

Sorry, that are such shitty priorities to you.

++++++++++++++++

Finally, I do oppose about 99% of government social programs. Now, not because I hate poor people. I was a poor person. I give 10% of my net income to local charities, every year, and have since I was a Private First Class.

I hate government social programs because only pennies of the dollars spent actually goes to the people, and the little that does get there turns people into useless sacks of shit that sit around waiting for their next check ---- I know this, too, because our reservation is full of such useless fucks.[/quote]

Fucking preach it.

We decided not to sell equity we owned this year so as not to get slapped on taxes.

Our family business is not going to be hiring this year, after adding 3 jobs each of the last two years.

207

I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. I struggle with understanding why there are jobs in this country that are essential to the workings of the “machine” but do not pay enough to live on. Cleaning restrooms, working at daycare centers, working with the mentally ill, waiting tables, washing dishes, harvesting crops, cooking food, caring for the elderly in nursing homes, serving as a cashier, etc. etc. All of these jobs are essential to having a functioning society but do not pay enough for people to live respectably.

It’s not that I like giving lazy people a handout. I don’t. And I’m not lobbying for that at all. But I do think about the people who work their asses off for minimum wage. So it frustrates me to hear people who make so much money whine about having a little less. Eh, I’ve gone soft in my old age.

208

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Also I know you are fond of calling Obama a socialist for one reason being the healthcare issue. However Nixon was to the left of Obama on healthcare and you wouldn’t call him a socialist, would you? You ought to revisit your thoughts on a President who governs like a moderate Republican instead of calling him a socialist.[/quote]

That’s funny I don’t remember “Nixoncare” being passed.

And the only reason Obama has not done more things like Obamacare is that he no longer has both house and senate democrat majority. If he gets both during the mid-terms he will pull more socialist policies like Obamacare. As long as there are republicans to stop him he has to lean center left.

209

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. I struggle with understanding why there are jobs in this country that are essential to the workings of the “machine” but do not pay enough to live on. Cleaning restrooms, working at daycare centers, working with the mentally ill, waiting tables, washing dishes, harvesting crops, cooking food, caring for the elderly in nursing homes, serving as a cashier, etc. etc. All of these jobs are essential to having a functioning society but do not pay enough for people to live respectably.

It’s not that I like giving lazy people a handout. I don’t. And I’m not lobbying for that at all. But I do think about the people who work their asses off for minimum wage. So it frustrates me to hear people who make so much money whine about having a little less. Eh, I’ve gone soft in my old age.[/quote]

Cool. How many “fair” salaries do you provide people?

210

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. I struggle with understanding why there are jobs in this country that are essential to the workings of the “machine” but do not pay enough to live on. Cleaning restrooms, working at daycare centers, working with the mentally ill, waiting tables, washing dishes, harvesting crops, cooking food, caring for the elderly in nursing homes, serving as a cashier, etc. etc. All of these jobs are essential to having a functioning society but do not pay enough for people to live respectably.

It’s not that I like giving lazy people a handout. I don’t. And I’m not lobbying for that at all. But I do think about the people who work their asses off for minimum wage. So it frustrates me to hear people who make so much money whine about having a little less. Eh, I’ve gone soft in my old age.[/quote]

You’re not the only one who wonders these types of things.

211

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. I struggle with understanding why there are jobs in this country that are essential to the workings of the “machine” but do not pay enough to live on. Cleaning restrooms, working at daycare centers, working with the mentally ill, waiting tables, washing dishes, harvesting crops, cooking food, caring for the elderly in nursing homes, serving as a cashier, etc. etc. All of these jobs are essential to having a functioning society but do not pay enough for people to live respectably.

It’s not that I like giving lazy people a handout. I don’t. And I’m not lobbying for that at all. But I do think about the people who work their asses off for minimum wage. So it frustrates me to hear people who make so much money whine about having a little less. Eh, I’ve gone soft in my old age.[/quote]
I promised the Lord that I would never, no matter how much money I were ever to make, keep more than what would today amount to probably about 50 grand a year. That means if I made one billion dollars next year, I would give away 999,950,000 of it. I do not want or need any more than that. However, I would fight with everything I could to see to it that as absolutely little as possible wound up in the hands of those godless whoring merchants of death in DC. I will decide where to give MY money.

The only thing worse than God hating greedy citizens and corporations is God hating greedy power hungry politicians. I would never EVER attempt to enforce my promise to God on others at the point of the sword of government.

212

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity.[/quote]

I’ll explain it to you…Okay?

There is “people disparity.”

Some people are smarter and or more ambitious than others. With me so far?

Those people will in most cases make more money than those who are lazy and or unskilled.

Capitalism rewards those who are able to create wealth (unless of course you have a government job in which case you need only kiss ass and toe the mark for 20 years and they hand you a pension). That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to start your own business. If you work for others and are able to create wealth for them then most likely a really nice salary and bonus package will be your reward.

Keep in mind however that there are still jobs for those who are less skilled and have no ambition. Those are the low paying jobs. But jobs that nonetheless must be done. Someone who pushes a broom for example is simply not worth the same amount of money as someone who is able to design nuclear submarines.

There you go.

And…no charge!

213

Very good ZEB. All men being created equal does NOT mean that all are equally or similarly gifted and of course, the less there are who are qualified to do a certain job, the more compensation that job will quite rightly demand. This perverse longing for socioeconomic sameness with other people’s money, engineered by magisterial force is neither biblical nor achievable. Never has been. Never will be. That won’t stop societies full of bleating starry eyed sheep from continuing to destroy themselves trying though.

214

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
IBut maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. I struggle with understanding why there are jobs in this country that are essential to the workings of the “machine” but do not pay enough to live on. Cleaning restrooms, working at daycare centers, working with the mentally ill, waiting tables, washing dishes, harvesting crops, cooking food, caring for the elderly in nursing homes, serving as a cashier, etc. etc. All of these jobs are essential to having a functioning society but do not pay enough for people to live respectably.

It’s not that I like giving lazy people a handout. I don’t. And I’m not lobbying for that at all. But I do think about the people who work their asses off for minimum wage. So it frustrates me to hear people who make so much money whine about having a little less. Eh, I’ve gone soft in my old age.[/quote]

You are going after two contrary goals here: (1) making people “more equal” and (2) making sure people have living wages.

Unfairly taxing the productive does nothing to raise the salaries of the working poor. All it does is make the more productive have less money — essentially “trickle up misery.”

In fact, study-after-study shows that removing the incremnetal dolars from the highest earners causes them to cease discretionary spending, which hurts the working poor most of all.

And, in general, while the idea of making sure the working poor can, indeed, work, is great, the idea of “income disparity” is stupid.

“Income disparity” is a term introduced by the Soviet Union (yes, the Soviets) to breed class envy in the West. It was picked up by inteligensia that was funded by the Soviets.

Absorb that for a moment. Do you think, for a moment, the Soviet intention was good?

Now, let’s analyze if “income disparity” should be a conderation.

Me, I make really, really good wage. Income way over a million per year.

I work for BILLIONAIRES, however. This week, I flew to Cabo to get people to sign papers, then get back in a plane in my suit the same day. They have far greater income and wealth than I will ever hope to have. A super model that will not be named was naked on the deck of the yacht.

Indeed, the wealth difference between me and my clients and me and the mildly drunk lady who takes out the trash in my office every night is far greater than imagineable.

However, these billionaires make me a millionare. And I make pilots and lawyers and accountants and lots of other people 100,000aires.

To resent my clients is stupid and the epitome of failed Soviet thinking.

No one should care about how much money any one else is making, provided they have food on the table, dry clothes, and a safe place to sleep.

Unfair taxation does nothing to help that goal.

215

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

You’re not the only one who wonders these types of things. [/quote]

Undoubtedly true. The class-warfare propaganda is great and effective and pervasive thoughou the media and schools.

Most people are not independent thinkers and cannot see the scam.

216

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I knew my comment would draw ire.

But maybe someone can address the concern I have with income disparity. [/quote]

“Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.”

–Will Durant, who believed that the driving force of all human history was the natural inequality of man.

This phenomenon–man’s inequality–will never be truly repressed or eradicated. It is built in. And the distribution of resources across society will always reflect it. Aberrations, of course, exist: the cast of the Jersey Shore is right now enjoying riches that many infinitely abler men and women will never see. But it runs counter to nature and to human logic that it would be considered normal for a man of tepid ability to live a life equal to that of his superiors.

That said, though the people who use words like “job creators” will never admit it, there is some serious luck involved in success. Some kids are born to educated parents; others are born to drug addicts. Or with FAS. Or with HIV. And our social system should try to address this element of randomness–but not after these children have grown, by trying to stuff more money into their bank accounts than they already earn for the menial job they’ve taken. Any help should be given in childhood–pre-natal nutrition programs, good schooling, etc.

217

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

You’re not the only one who wonders these types of things. [/quote]

Undoubtedly true. The class-warfare propaganda is great and effective and pervasive thoughou the media and schools.

Most people are not independent thinkers and cannot see the scam.[/quote]

The thing that gets me is the moral relativism of it all. Poor people on welfare with X-boxes and cars. Is what you are being paid for what you are able to do fair? While, if you aren’t forced into your job, I don’t think it matters because you are a volunteer, that is at least a reasonable question. But when you base your objection on what OTHERS have and make, it becomes absurdity at it’s finest. What the guy down the street has doesn’t affect what you deserve.

218

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poor_some_ugar_on_me_0Hq1d3iPnvj2RwpsEDS7MN[/quote]

While the issue at hand is disgusting, that article is very poorly written, as it gives no indication of the size and/or scope of the problem. More than $100 at a gay dive bar on January 17, 2011? Scandalous, but not investigative journalism (not that that’s necessarily expected of the NYP).

In other words, you can’t generalize from that article to the average welfare recipient, because not a shred of useful data is supplied.

Edit: Which is not to say I wouldn’t crack down on this like Indiana Jones’ whip if I were in charge. And I’d get those EBT dispensaries out of strip clubs tomorrow.

219

[quote]smh23 wrote:
the people who use words like “job creators” will never admit it, there is some serious luck involved in success. Some kids are born to educated parents; others are born to drug addicts. Or with FAS. Or with HIV. And our social system should try to address this element of randomness–but not after these children have grown, by trying to stuff more money into their bank accounts than they already earn for the menial job they’ve taken. Any help should be given in childhood–pre-natal nutrition programs, good schooling, etc.[/quote]

You are referring to “luck” as in being born to the proper parents. For want of a better word I suppose you can use luck. However, what about the kids that grow up and climb out of the ghetto? That is not a story that the MSLM wants to tell, but it is not uncommon. What skills did they apply to their own lives which lead them to long-term success?

As for pure luck in long-term financial success, it doesn’t happen. Long-term success only comes to those who work smart and very, very hard over a long period of time. Luck will not carry you through. Naturally, one can win the lottery. But then again if you’ve read some of those stories they don’t usually end well.

Long-term success has nothing to do with luck…NOTHING.

220

Even if luck has something to do with longterm success, what should it be replaced with?

People are different, they have different backgrounds, upbringings, incomes, talents, etc.

Not everyone can be equal. A ruler can make MOST people equal financially by taking almost everything from some and distributing it to others. That will make the ruled somewhat equal(obviously this would result in most everyone living in third world conditions-but MOST would be equal). However, there is still a ruler. That ruler is not going to live like the ruled so there would still not be total equality, even if a ruler forcibly makes everyone else equal.

What if everyone could somehow start off with total equality of circumstances? How do we assure the equality of genetics?

Freedom, not equality, must be the goal of government. Pursuit of anything else will bring out evil in people.