Obama Cuts Taxes?

[Aragorn]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Another point I think Ratchet brought up–cut staffing.

Companies pay attention to efficiency. They may be evil, unjust and oppressive (Ryan McCarter), but with the exception of venture capital firms and various hedge fund/investment banking companies they a) work to be as efficient as possible and b) manage risk. The vast, vast majority of successful service and industrial companies do this. If the gov’t were run more along a company’s financial lines you’d have a helluva lot less waste. Problem is, that’s “hard”. And it requires stepping on toes of people who think they’re entitled, not the least of which are the politicians.[/quote]

How about cutting govt subsidies to farmers? I live right smack in the middle of the Central Valley. I can tell you right now that most farmers out here are filthy rich, not some Auntie Em and Uncle Henry, Mom-and-Pop outfit struggling to remain above water. On top of that, why should taxpayers subsidize farmers who grow marginal crops like walnuts or almonds? We don’t need that shit to survive, we need corn, wheat, stuff like that.

But we pay farmers to not only grow these things, we sometimes pay them to NOT grow in certain years to keep prices stable. Plus, rice farmers are the biggest polluters of the state’s waterways BY FAR. Yet we essentially pay them to do so. Why?[/quote]

OMG. I agree.[/quote]

MARK TODAY DOWN IN YOUR CALENDARS GENTLEMEN!!! TODAY IS A GREAT DAY INDEED!!!

No, but seriously this would be a great first step. I mean, yeah there’s all sorts of things to cut, but farm subsidies are in the tens of billions a year. And for what? Anywhere from 45-60% of the rice grown here in Cal is shipped out of the United States. Where does a lot of it go? North Korea and China of all places. So we’re paying them to grow a product that fucking annihilates our waterways (to the tune of 5-6$ per acre foot of water usage, compared to 5-6 grand per acre foot for non-farmers) while we are forced to pay extra in taxes to keep our state “green” so that China and NK get their rice. They only need our rice because things are completely backwards in NK and China has ruined so much of their own rice-growing fields from industrial pollution that they’re unusable. When NK blows up some nuke and we go to the table and promise aid in return for no more nuke testing, and then they do it again, what do you think we’re giving them? OUR rice.

We should cut govt farm subsidies out entirely, eliminate half of the rice fields in the valley to save our waterways, and tell multi-billionaires like Ken Hoffman (who owns a plurality of the agr. property in NorCal) to go fuck themselves. See, why should Ken Hoffman get a tax cut? We are essentially supporting a system with our tax dollars right now that keeps unnecessary farm land viable through what’s nothing more than agricultural welfare. We are lowering his taxes so that he can do what? Buy more farm land so that the taxpayer can subsidize meaningless crops like walnuts and pecans and persimmons and fund the polluting of our waterways?

[/quote]

AGREE! Totally agree. The vast vast majority of agribusiness is megabucks. On the other hand, I do have a good number of relatives that are your “auntie Em and uncle Henry” types. They own small farms. However, I would caveat that today’s “unnecessary farmland” is tomorrow’s food shortage when our population finally hits that explosion. I really don’t have a ready idea for that, other than that I think we should set aside some farmland for future, maybe like we did with national forests, etc. Obviously that’s problematic, just thinking about it.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the republicans in Congress made him do it and I LOVE IT. [/quote]

Then please do not ever complain about the deficit again.

[/quote]

Simple concept, STOP SPENDING. Spending cuts MUST be accompanied with any tax cut. But here is where all politicians especially the democrats lose the fight.

By the way they can begin with Jimmy Carters Department of Education. [/quote]

But UNLESS you stop spending at the same time you cut revenue, you end up with a deficit. If your wife did this shit, you’d be on here complaining about it, but when the republicans do it, you strap on your pom-poms.[/quote]

Wrong on both counts - I make enough to give my wife a very nice allowance each month and she can do what she likes with it. Seriously, I complain ifrepublicans do this. But historically while republicans have been far from perfect it’s the democrats that have refused to cut spending. But yes they’re both guilty.

Also, have fun explaining to that pitchfork-toting mob how they should all thank you for taking away their food and medical care. There’s a reason a lot of brash guys like you go to Washington every year, talking a big game about shrinking government, and then end up either doing nothing, or adding to the debt.

Some do go to washington and do just that. But if I went (and I’m not)I would say look boys and girls I’m here for one term (okay I can be talked into two because I like all the perks) and I want to make a difference in the country that I love and that has given me so much. Here’s how we do it----who’s in? And when they all run in the opposite direction I vote my way.

And I’m not worried about a mob. I think it can be done gradually, like raising the retirement age over several years. Things like this can be done and it must be done.

[DBCooper]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand many of you people, the ones who want to give our government more money to fuck off with.

Have you not seen, time and time again, that our government continually fucks the money off, right off a cliff, with little to nothing to show for it? I don’t care who is in office, who is driving this bitch, or who does more chest thumping thinking their ideas are better than the other party.

Here in California, we have full blown Socialism, yet are not reaping the “rewards” of Socialism. We have the highest taxes in every category, in every way, in the entire country, yet have the highest deficit, highest welfare contribution, some of the worst unemployment, worst business environment, costs of living, etc.

Honestly, what the fuck more do you need to look at to see how much FUBAR is involved when the government gets their claws on shit. [/quote]

I can’t speak for the others here, but I expect the govt to also not start wiping their asses with whatever extra tax revenue would have been gained by these taxes. Is this unlikely? Does Rose Kennedy have a black dress?

But the Republicans, especially their Tea Party-affiliated comrades, have claimed to represent a return to fiscal responsibility, so why not give them a little more cash to help ease the economy back into relevance?

[DBCooper]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Another point I think Ratchet brought up–cut staffing.

Companies pay attention to efficiency. They may be evil, unjust and oppressive (Ryan McCarter), but with the exception of venture capital firms and various hedge fund/investment banking companies they a) work to be as efficient as possible and b) manage risk. The vast, vast majority of successful service and industrial companies do this. If the gov’t were run more along a company’s financial lines you’d have a helluva lot less waste. Problem is, that’s “hard”. And it requires stepping on toes of people who think they’re entitled, not the least of which are the politicians.[/quote]

How about cutting govt subsidies to farmers? I live right smack in the middle of the Central Valley. I can tell you right now that most farmers out here are filthy rich, not some Auntie Em and Uncle Henry, Mom-and-Pop outfit struggling to remain above water. On top of that, why should taxpayers subsidize farmers who grow marginal crops like walnuts or almonds? We don’t need that shit to survive, we need corn, wheat, stuff like that.

But we pay farmers to not only grow these things, we sometimes pay them to NOT grow in certain years to keep prices stable. Plus, rice farmers are the biggest polluters of the state’s waterways BY FAR. Yet we essentially pay them to do so. Why?[/quote]

OMG. I agree.[/quote]

MARK TODAY DOWN IN YOUR CALENDARS GENTLEMEN!!! TODAY IS A GREAT DAY INDEED!!!

No, but seriously this would be a great first step. I mean, yeah there’s all sorts of things to cut, but farm subsidies are in the tens of billions a year. And for what? Anywhere from 45-60% of the rice grown here in Cal is shipped out of the United States. Where does a lot of it go? North Korea and China of all places. So we’re paying them to grow a product that fucking annihilates our waterways (to the tune of 5-6$ per acre foot of water usage, compared to 5-6 grand per acre foot for non-farmers) while we are forced to pay extra in taxes to keep our state “green” so that China and NK get their rice. They only need our rice because things are completely backwards in NK and China has ruined so much of their own rice-growing fields from industrial pollution that they’re unusable. When NK blows up some nuke and we go to the table and promise aid in return for no more nuke testing, and then they do it again, what do you think we’re giving them? OUR rice.

We should cut govt farm subsidies out entirely, eliminate half of the rice fields in the valley to save our waterways, and tell multi-billionaires like Ken Hoffman (who owns a plurality of the agr. property in NorCal) to go fuck themselves. See, why should Ken Hoffman get a tax cut? We are essentially supporting a system with our tax dollars right now that keeps unnecessary farm land viable through what’s nothing more than agricultural welfare. We are lowering his taxes so that he can do what? Buy more farm land so that the taxpayer can subsidize meaningless crops like walnuts and pecans and persimmons and fund the polluting of our waterways?

[/quote]

AGREE! Totally agree. The vast vast majority of agribusiness is megabucks. On the other hand, I do have a good number of relatives that are your “auntie Em and uncle Henry” types. They own small farms. However, I would caveat that today’s “unnecessary farmland” is tomorrow’s food shortage when our population finally hits that explosion. I really don’t have a ready idea for that, other than that I think we should set aside some farmland for future, maybe like we did with national forests, etc. Obviously that’s problematic, just thinking about it.[/quote]

Here’s the solution: remove the excess rice paddies, remove the marginal-crop farms and now your relatives have less corporate competition bleeding them dry. Turn the marginal crops into corn and wheat and so forth instead of fucking persimmons and olives and any possible food shortage can easily be alleviated. Besides, I don’t think we’ll ever see a food shortage here unless our agricultural techniques become stagnant and outdated. The problem with most starving areas isn’t their inability to grow things; it’s the inability to supply them with food from other areas. Distribution, not production, is the problem.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Do you think businesses hire based on how big or small the government is? Do you understand that they have to have customers, paying money for goods or services, before they hire?[/quote]

LOL, I’ve been running my own business in one form or another for over 20 years I fully understand how the system works. Let me explain what I mean by making government smaller will help business.

There are two things which hold business growth down:

1-High taxes local, state and federal.

2-Excessive regulations which restrict business growth. Also things like waiting for licensing, permits, inspections etc

Keep in mind I am not advocating that all of this should be removed as some of it is needed. There are some unscrupulous businesses that need this sort of governance. However I do know that if some of it were curtailed business growth would be a direct offshoot. I also fully understand that there must be some sort of tax - A flat tax would be best with no loopholes or deductions for anyone.

Once again government usually hurts business growth - They rarely help. Therefore, a smaller government would do less damage.

everything you say here contradicts econ 101.

As I said to you in another thread, I do not want to bring up age and experience, but sometimes that’s the only way that I can explain to you the difference between your econ class and the real world. I’ve been out there a really long time and I have felt the power of government. They slow you down, strike fear in your heart, and in the end take a great deal of your money. They are the 500 pound gorilla in the room and it needn’t be this way.

[quote]The stimulus money, actually, saved about 3 million jobs. This has been confirmed by the CBO, as well as multiple independent analysts, including Goldman Sachs:

“For the third quarter, economists at Goldman Sachs & Co. predict the U.S. economy will grow by 3.3%. “Without that extra stimulus, we would be somewhere around zero,” said Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for Goldman.”

U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus - WSJ

I’ve head conflicting reports on the actual jobs “Created” by the stimulus. But let’s say you’re correct. What sort of jobs were they? Are they long lasting? Are they high paying? Or are they make ready jobs?

Here’s an idea, what if they spent those billions on creating a favorable environment for entrepreneurs? What if there were a tax credit created to encourage buying property, equipment, and hiring people? Then the jobs created from actual businesses making a product and performing a service would be realjobs. They would be there long-term.

Taking tax payers money and floating pretend make ready jobs is not the way to a healthy long lasting economy. FDR tried it and it failed. As you know WWII brought us out of the great one.

IT helped in several ways: through expanded food stamps and payments to unemployed,

Handouts. I’m not impressed.

as well as tax credits to workers, and aid to states so they could keep public employees like teachers

A band aid where a splint is needed. What happens when there is not another shot of stimulus? When they could have invested that money in real jobs in the private sector.

[quote]A lot of it, however was tax cuts, which economists warned would be ineffective. Lo and behold.
[/quote]

Nonsense, every single time taxes have been cut there has been revenue growth. Check it out. But that’s not a stretch. Allowing people to keep more of their money is not only the moral thing to do, but the correct one as well.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think the republicans in Congress made him do it and I LOVE IT. [/quote]

Then please do not ever complain about the deficit again.

[/quote]

Simple concept, STOP SPENDING. Spending cuts MUST be accompanied with any tax cut. But here is where all politicians especially the democrats lose the fight.

By the way they can begin with Jimmy Carters Department of Education. [/quote]

But UNLESS you stop spending at the same time you cut revenue, you end up with a deficit. If your wife did this shit, you’d be on here complaining about it, but when the republicans do it, you strap on your pom-poms.

Also, have fun explaining to that pitchfork-toting mob how they should all thank you for taking away their food and medical care. There’s a reason a lot of brash guys like you go to Washington every year, talking a big game about shrinking government, and then end up either doing nothing, or adding to the debt.[/quote]

I agree spending must be curtailed. To say that we can’t do this because of a pitchfork-toting mob is silly. You do it gradually, in baby steps. For example, you raise the retirement age by only one year every two. Social Security was not meant to support someone for 20 years. We were only living to the age of 68 when it was enacted. The average life span has gone up considerably but the weak politicians refused to raise the age of retirement as longevity went up.

These are common sense solutions.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
One of the real issues with govt spending is how a budget works. Quite simply, an office losses its funding if it does not spend all of its money. It is not allowed to save for future expenditures that do not occur every year, like upgrading technology. So, there is a rush to spend everything to try and keep funding and some extra money if the need arises.

There are thousands (if not hundred of thousands) of govt offices (universities work this way as well) that are spending money needlessly at the end of the year to meet the demand of the budget. So basically, I am saying the fundamental way we account for govt spending leads to bloated expenditures. We can argue where to cut spending, but honestly, the real savings would be in developing a system that rewards, rather than punishes, cost savings.

Sorry if not sexy.[/quote]

Yup, totally agree! I’ve been thinking about that for years now. Problem is, I think that is even more of a long term solution than the cut spending thing is. You can cut spending immediately (if you actually wanted to, har har). But restructuring the way the budget is rewarded/punished is a sort of long-term endeavor with internal regulatory changes and other things.[/quote]

There is a lot that can be done within the current system now that requires no political action. Beyond the ‘budgeting’ problem is the desire for BIG savings, not smaller savings here and there that increase efficiency and collectively do more than the big savings. This is especially true when it is procedural changes and not ‘cuts’. If administrators and bureaucrats could develop a taste for the smaller savings that could be major.

I did this as a job but I am not comfortable discussing anything resembling details in an open forum. PM if you want to discuss further.

[skaz05]

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t understand many of you people, the ones who want to give our government more money to fuck off with.

Have you not seen, time and time again, that our government continually fucks the money off, right off a cliff, with little to nothing to show for it? I don’t care who is in office, who is driving this bitch, or who does more chest thumping thinking their ideas are better than the other party.

Here in California, we have full blown Socialism, yet are not reaping the “rewards” of Socialism. We have the highest taxes in every category, in every way, in the entire country, yet have the highest deficit, highest welfare contribution, some of the worst unemployment, worst business environment, costs of living, etc.

Honestly, what the fuck more do you need to look at to see how much FUBAR is involved when the government gets their claws on shit. [/quote]

You know what is the most infuriating thing about all this is? Is that the same people that were complaining about “high taxes under Bush” are now the same exact people that want higher taxes now.

All of a sudden, the same people that were bitching about taxes for the past 10 years are now, all of a sudden, totally in favor of higher taxes because, you know, it’s for the good of the country n’ shit. Everyone knows people like this.

Of course, you people are going to read this and not reply because you know you’re so full of shit that there’s no possible way to explain your hypocrisy on this issue - so fine.

Exposing the hypocritical left - it’s FANTASTIC!

[Charlemagne]

How about this.

HOW ABOUT A WALL STREET SALES TAX!!!

How about a financial transaction tax on banks. They pay nothing. Not a dime. They are the ones who caused this mess, they should be the ones to pay for it.

They borrow trillions of dollars of our money at zero percent interest from the Fed, put up toxic derivatives as collateral, then loan our own money back to us at ridiculous interest rates or by bonds from the Fed and make money off that.

Why are the American people continuing to support these parasites, these leeches, these profiteers of human misery? They produce nothing.

If the past two years has proved anything beyond a doubt,at least in someone whose mind isn’t brain dead, it’s two things:

1. You cannot build an economy on derivatives and speculation. You must produce. You must have industry and innovation.

2. The trickle down theory of economics doesn’t work. The super rich do not invest in infrastructure or create new jobs for the people. They take their money to Goldman Sachs and invest it in derivatives or the hot money, financial raping of some 3rd world country.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Another point I think Ratchet brought up–cut staffing.

Companies pay attention to efficiency. They may be evil, unjust and oppressive (Ryan McCarter), but with the exception of venture capital firms and various hedge fund/investment banking companies they a) work to be as efficient as possible and b) manage risk. The vast, vast majority of successful service and industrial companies do this. If the gov’t were run more along a company’s financial lines you’d have a helluva lot less waste. Problem is, that’s “hard”. And it requires stepping on toes of people who think they’re entitled, not the least of which are the politicians.[/quote]

How about cutting govt subsidies to farmers? I live right smack in the middle of the Central Valley. I can tell you right now that most farmers out here are filthy rich, not some Auntie Em and Uncle Henry, Mom-and-Pop outfit struggling to remain above water. On top of that, why should taxpayers subsidize farmers who grow marginal crops like walnuts or almonds? We don’t need that shit to survive, we need corn, wheat, stuff like that.

But we pay farmers to not only grow these things, we sometimes pay them to NOT grow in certain years to keep prices stable. Plus, rice farmers are the biggest polluters of the state’s waterways BY FAR. Yet we essentially pay them to do so. Why?[/quote]

OMG. I agree.[/quote]

MARK TODAY DOWN IN YOUR CALENDARS GENTLEMEN!!! TODAY IS A GREAT DAY INDEED!!!

No, but seriously this would be a great first step. I mean, yeah there’s all sorts of things to cut, but farm subsidies are in the tens of billions a year. And for what? Anywhere from 45-60% of the rice grown here in Cal is shipped out of the United States. Where does a lot of it go? North Korea and China of all places. So we’re paying them to grow a product that fucking annihilates our waterways (to the tune of 5-6$ per acre foot of water usage, compared to 5-6 grand per acre foot for non-farmers) while we are forced to pay extra in taxes to keep our state “green” so that China and NK get their rice. They only need our rice because things are completely backwards in NK and China has ruined so much of their own rice-growing fields from industrial pollution that they’re unusable. When NK blows up some nuke and we go to the table and promise aid in return for no more nuke testing, and then they do it again, what do you think we’re giving them? OUR rice.

We should cut govt farm subsidies out entirely, eliminate half of the rice fields in the valley to save our waterways, and tell multi-billionaires like Ken Hoffman (who owns a plurality of the agr. property in NorCal) to go fuck themselves. See, why should Ken Hoffman get a tax cut? We are essentially supporting a system with our tax dollars right now that keeps unnecessary farm land viable through what’s nothing more than agricultural welfare. We are lowering his taxes so that he can do what? Buy more farm land so that the taxpayer can subsidize meaningless crops like walnuts and pecans and persimmons and fund the polluting of our waterways?

[/quote]

AGREE! Totally agree. The vast vast majority of agribusiness is megabucks. On the other hand, I do have a good number of relatives that are your “auntie Em and uncle Henry” types. They own small farms. However, I would caveat that today’s “unnecessary farmland” is tomorrow’s food shortage when our population finally hits that explosion. I really don’t have a ready idea for that, other than that I think we should set aside some farmland for future, maybe like we did with national forests, etc. Obviously that’s problematic, just thinking about it.[/quote]

There is a bit of a movement to move agriculture indoors, making use of empty warehouse and building space in cities, using hydroponics to grow plants that do not ship well providing the city with fresh vegetables. A smart use of solar power and water treatment can minimize energy and other inputs. This such like using duckweed and tilapia to filter the water (this can be used to meet secondary waste water treatment standards in US, and the water would not be all that polluted anyway. Subsidizing this make more sense that supporting large multinational companies who seek profit over providing nutritious products. That is another thread.

It is the low cost of shipping that, and current agroindustrial practices that require large swaths of land.

[Fezzik]

It is going to take me at least 5 more years to become a gold bazillionaire, so this doesn’t help me at all

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

ZEB wrote:Wrong on both counts - I make enough to give my wife a very nice allowance each month and she can do what she likes with it. Seriously, I complain ifrepublicans do this. But historically while republicans have been far from perfect it’s the democrats that have refused to cut spending. But yes they’re both guilty.

Actually, I’m right again. You don’t complain about republicans, but look:

Directly contrary to your claim, republicans have, in the past 30 or so years, been FAR worse on deficits than democrats, who have barely been in office.

And EVEN if the democrats were in a position throughout that entire period block spending reductions, does it really make a better case for republicans that they were willing to go ahead with massive increases in military spending and massive tax cuts, given the revenue situation? You have still not explained yourself.

Some do go to washington and do just that. But if I went (and I’m not)I would say look boys and girls I’m here for one term (okay I can be talked into two because I like all the perks) and I want to make a difference in the country that I love and that has given me so much. Here’s how we do it----who’s in? And when they all run in the opposite direction I vote my way.

See, that’s the reason. No one will do it because it’s suicide. It’s suicide for a reason.

[quote]And I’m not worried about a mob. I think it can be done gradually, like raising the retirement age over several years. Things like this can be done and it must be done.
[/quote]

On the contrary, it cannot be done, and it must not be done. Look at the wealthy distribution in this country. As I’ve told you before, the top 1% control 42% of the wealth in this country, and earn $0.24 of every $1 paid out. Let me give you a hint: further impoverishing the rest of the country will not solve the problem. It IS the problem. To get rid of government programs, you have to make them unnecessary. As long this is the situation:

you’re not going to be getting rid of it anytime soon, unless you want a legitimate revolt.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]ZEB wrote:LOL, I’ve been running my own business in one form or another for over 20 years I fully understand how the system works. Let me explain what I mean by making government smaller will help business.

There are two things which hold business growth down:

1-High taxes local, state and federal.

2-Excessive regulations which restrict business growth. Also things like waiting for licensing, permits, inspections etc

Keep in mind I am not advocating that all of this should be removed as some of it is needed. There are some unscrupulous businesses that need this sort of governance. However I do know that if some of it were curtailed business growth would be a direct offshoot. I also fully understand that there must be some sort of tax - A flat tax would be best with no loopholes or deductions for anyone.

Once again government usually hurts business growth - They rarely help. Therefore, a smaller government would do less damage.[/quote]

This all sounds very nice, but do youw know what was missing from it? The part where you address the point about not having any customers. You don’t have to know anything about running a business to know that, regardless of the tax situation, if you have no customers, you’re sunk. Without the government, you would have no customers. You’re biting the hand that feeds you.

As I said to you in another thread, I do not want to bring up age and experience, but sometimes that’s the only way that I can explain to you the difference between your econ class and the real world.

Three things here:

1. To bring up age and experience would be utterly irrelevant. For one thing, because I’m making a more-or-less theoretical argument that “experience” does not help you with. Also, it’s irrelevant anyway. The older people get, the more value they place on the ethereal quality called “experience,” yet they can never explain what they mean by it or how it makes the dumb shit they’re saying any smarter. Here’s the situation: young people think they know everything because they’re young, and that’s just how they are. Old people (meaning, not young) ALSO think they know everything because they have “experience.” So really, you’re just exhibiting a slightly different version of the same behavior you complain about in the young.

Bottom line, address criticisms, bring facts. Don’t bluster.

2. I am not an economics student. I’m an engineering physics major. Trying to dismiss me with the “university bias” doesn’t work, because I’m not exposed to any potentially biased areas which are relevant to this topic.

3. Even if I were an econ student, you have not explained to me the difference between a college econ class and the real world. To date, you have said that you like republicans and not democrats, and that government is bad for business. You have not explained yourself.

I’ve been out there a really long time and I have felt the power of government. They slow you down, strike fear in your heart, and in the end take a great deal of your money. They are the 500 pound gorilla in the room and it needn’t be this way.

See above.

[quote]The stimulus money, actually, saved about 3 million jobs. This has been confirmed by the CBO, as well as multiple independent analysts, including Goldman Sachs:

I’ve head conflicting reports on the actual jobs “Created” by the stimulus. But let’s say you’re correct. What sort of jobs were they? Are they long lasting? Are they high paying? Or are they make ready jobs? [/quote]

They weren’t “created,” nor was this the point. The point of a stimulus package is to keep the rest of the economy humming along while the damaged sector of the economy heals itself.

So no, they’re not long-lasting because they’re not supposed to be. Despite what you hear on talk radio, the stimulus package was not some insidious government plot to reshape the economy.

But what’s indisputable is the fact, that a lot of teachers, police officers, fire fighters, still have a job because of the stimulus. You may or may not think this is a good thing, but it does help to sustain the economy. Unemployment has a draining effect on the entire economy.

Here’s an idea, what if they spent those billions on creating a favorable environment for entrepreneurs? What if there were a tax credit created to encourage buying property, equipment, and hiring people? Then the jobs created from actual businesses making a product and performing a service would be realjobs. They would be there long-term.

What, like providing for increased loans to businesses from community banks? Done. Providing tax credits for the purchase of new equipment? Done.

Our tax rates are some of the lowest in the world. High tax rates are not a major problem.

Taking tax payers money and floating pretend make ready jobs is not the way to a healthy long lasting economy. FDR tried it and it failed. As you know WWII brought us out of the great one.

What do you think WWII was? A deficit-financed, huge public works project. In short, it was the definition of Keynesian stimulus. Oops.

Handouts. I’m not impressed.

I didn’t ask you to be impressed. You asked how it helped the economy, and that;s one of numerous ways it did just that.

A band aid where a splint is needed. What happens when there is not another shot of stimulus? When they could have invested that money in real jobs in the private sector.

I hope you realize you’re calling for more government action, not less. That is of course, exactly what we need, I just didn’t know if you realized the implications of your statement.

[quote]Nonsense, every single time taxes have been cut there has been revenue growth. Check it out. But that’s not a stretch. Allowing people to keep more of their money is not only the moral thing to do, but the correct one as well.
[/quote]

Oh, I have checked it out. Are you surprised there’s revenue growth? The economy grows, revenue grows. It grows all the time over the long run no matter how you tweak the tax rates. But in fact, revenues grow more slowly when large tax cuts are given, as the Bush tax cuts have proved, adding over $1 trillion to the debt, and as Reagan’s tax cuts proved back in the 80s (also, the decrease in revenue from Reagan’s tax cuts were partially offset by a rise in payroll taxes, so the pitiful effectiveness of his tax cuts still looks better than it really was).

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
How about this.

HOW ABOUT A WALL STREET SALES TAX!!!

How about a financial transaction tax on banks. They pay nothing. Not a dime. They are the ones who caused this mess, they should be the ones to pay for it.

They borrow trillions of dollars of our money at zero percent interest from the Fed, put up toxic derivatives as collateral, then loan our own money back to us at ridiculous interest rates or by bonds from the Fed and make money off that.

Why are the American people continuing to support these parasites, these leeches, these profiteers of human misery? They produce nothing.

If the past two years has proved anything beyond a doubt,at least in someone whose mind isn’t brain dead, it’s two things:

1. You cannot build an economy on derivatives and speculation. You must produce. You must have industry and innovation.

2. The trickle down theory of economics doesn’t work. The super rich do not invest in infrastructure or create new jobs for the people. They take their money to Goldman Sachs and invest it in derivatives or the hot money, financial raping of some 3rd world country.

[/quote]

You’re just a freedom-hating communist. DON’T TREAD ON ME!1

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:

LOL, I’ve been running my own business in one form or another for over 20 years I
This all sounds very nice, but do youw know what was missing from it? The part where you address the point about not having any customers. You don’t have to know anything about running a business to know that, regardless of the tax situation, if you have no customers, you’re sunk. Without the government, you would have no customers. You’re biting the hand that feeds you.[/quote]

Not at all in fact I explained that. Once again, when business is booming people have jobs. When people have money in their pocket, through those jobs, they become customers. It’s simple, government does NOT help this process. All government does is get in the way as I explained. By the way how does funneling money through an iunnecessary 3rd party help anyone? Do you realize how little of your tax dollar actually goes to help people after government bloat? Not nearly as much as you might think.

[quote]
The older people get, the more value they place on the ethereal quality called “experience,” yet they can never explain what they mean by it or how it makes the dumb shit they’re saying any smarter.[/quote]

Experience is very important. Through experience you gain wisdom regarding what to do and what not to do. One can learn in a class room but most of it is theoretical. If you don’t think 20 years of experience in business gives someone a better idea of what is going on then I guess you don’t think 20 years from now you’ll be any smarter than you are right now. And I supposes some people are not, but most certainly are.

Here’s the situation: young people think they know everything because they’re young, and that’s just how they are. Old people (meaning, not young) ALSO think they know everything because they have “experience.” So really, you’re just exhibiting a slightly different version of the same behavior you complain about in the young.

Wow, do you have that wrong. Ther older you get the more knowledge and wisdom that you accumulate. How can you or anyone deny that? Again some people don’t go this route, but they were never very bright to begin with. And not all young people think they know everything Just the young people on this site I actually have helped a lot of interns from our local collge.

Bottom line, address criticisms, bring facts. Don’t bluster.

You’ve not addressed half of my facts I think you respond better to bluster so I’ll keep that up when and where appropriate.

I am not an economics student.

Obviously.

I’m an engineering physics major.

Oh, I’m sorry.

Trying to dismiss me with the “university bias” doesn’t work, because I’m not exposed to any potentially biased areas which are relevant to this topic.

Not really you’re just full of youthful hubris. No different than many your age. It’s okay it will pass, right around the first time you get a really good kick in the stomach. And you’ll know when that happens - You won’t like it at all - And you’ll remember me saying this.

Even if I were an econ student, you have not explained to me the difference between a college econ class and the real world. To date, you have said that you like republicans and not democrats, and that government is bad for business. You have not explained yourself.

Ha ha, I don’t have to “explain myself” really, poor, poor choice of words. Also, all you’ve said is that socialism is good and business is bad we need big government, hardly an explanation. You’ve not addressed any of my points about small government, but I guess you can’t really disagree so no problem.

[quote]I’ve head conflicting reports on the actual jobs “Created” by the stimulus. But let’s say you’re correct. What sort of jobs were they? Are they long lasting? Are they high paying? Or are they make ready jobs?

They weren’t “created,” nor was this the point. The point of a stimulus package is to keep the rest of the economy humming along while the damaged sector of the economy heals itself.

So no, they’re not long-lasting because they’re not supposed to be. [/quote]

And…that’s the problem. We need long lasting jobs and in fact we could have had them by now had Obama done it correctly. I explained that earlier.

[Despite what you hear on talk radio, the stimulus package was not some insidious government plot to reshape the economy.

Good straw man, nice. Never said it was AND you know that. But, they could have actually stimulated the economy correctly and didn’t do it.

Our tax rates are some of the lowest in the world. High tax rates are not a major problem.

The fact is everytime that there is a tax cut the economy grows. PERIOD. LOL since when does takig more money out of the hands of the people help anyone? It doesn’t.

[quote]Taking tax payers money and floating pretend make ready jobs is not the way to a healthy long lasting economy. FDR tried it and it failed. As you know WWII brought us out of the great one.

What do you think WWII was? A deficit-financed, huge public works project. In short, it was the definition of Keynesian stimulus. Oops.[/quote]

It was people going to work for a real cause making real products. Yeah. What was Obama’s stimulus? Nonsense.

[quote]A band aid where a splint is needed. What happens when there is not another shot of stimulus? When they could have invested that money in real jobs in the private sector.

I hope you realize you’re calling for more government action, not less. That is of course, exactly what we need, I just didn’t know if you realized the implications of your statement.[/quote]

My point is if you’re going to throw a gazillion dollars at a problem at least throw it in the right direction -Obama didn’t do that.

Tell me Mister Marist, how much should a person making say 80-k be paying to the federal government each year.

(I’m gonna love this)

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Oh, I have checked it out. Are you surprised there’s revenue growth? The economy grows, revenue grows. It grows all the time over the long run no matter how you tweak the tax rates. But in fact, revenues grow more slowly when large tax cuts are given, as the Bush tax cuts have proved, adding over $1 trillion to the debt, and as Reagan’s tax cuts proved back in the 80s (also, the decrease in revenue from Reagan’s tax cuts were partially offset by a rise in payroll taxes, so the pitiful effectiveness of his tax cuts still looks better than it really was). [/quote]

Tax cuts did not harm the economy. What hurt the economy was that there were tax cuts in the fact of spending increases. That’s pretty simple don’t make it more than it is. What needs to be done is taxes must be cut and spending cut along with it. If that ever happens we will have the most robust economy in the history of our country - You socialists would hate that huh? What could you possible say in the face of that sort of success?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

ZEB wrote:Not at all in fact I explained that.

No, you really didn’t. All you did was say, “government doesn’t help.” That’s not an explanation. It’s a mantra.

I request again that you explain how you make a profit without customers.

Once again, when business is booming people have jobs. When people have money in their pocket, through those jobs, they become customers. It’s simple, government does NOT help this process.

Yeah, I guess they don’t help–other than providing the roads they drive on to get to your business, providing public education that helped give them the skills they need to earn the money they spend at your business, providing police officers to make sure the area in which your business is located is safe, provide the legal system that enables your business to function, as well as directly putting money in the pockets of your customers for them to spend.

Other than that, you’re right.

All government does is get in the way as I explained. By the way how does funneling money through an iunnecessary 3rd party help anyone? Do you realize how little of your tax dollar actually goes to help people after government bloat? Not nearly as much as you might think.

I’m glad to see you finally back something up with facts. Oh…

Experience is very important. Through experience you gain wisdom regarding what to do and what not to do. One can learn in a class room but most of it is theoretical. If you don’t think 20 years of experience in business gives someone a better idea of what is going on then I guess you don’t think 20 years from now you’ll be any smarter than you are right now. And I supposes some people are not, but most certainly are.

Ha, what did I say? This does nothing to explain how your business will profit without customers, or to refute any of the factual evidence I’ve given you showing your errors.

Wow, do you have that wrong. Ther older you get the more knowledge and wisdom that you accumulate. How can you or anyone deny that? Again some people don’t go this route, but they were never very bright to begin with. And not all young people think they know everything Just the young people on this site I actually have helped a lot of interns from our local collge.

Uh, I know plenty of dumb old people. Do you not? Did you not see all the signs at the town hall healthcare debates: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare?” What is wisdom? All you’ve done is replace one empty word with another. Meanwhile, you still haven’t provided anyone with a single fact to buttress your argument.

You’ve not addressed half of my facts I think you respond better to bluster so I’ll keep that up when and where appropriate.

Oh really? Which ones? I’ll be glad to address any I missed. But so far, you’ve been wrong about the government hurting business, you’ve been wrong about the government not helping the recessions, you’ve been wrong about republicans and the deficit. You’ve simply ignored half of what I’ve written.

Obviously.

Yes, obviousl. If I were an economics student, I’d probably agree with your positions.

Not really you’re just full of youthful hubris.

Not really. Charts and graphs do not equal hubris. Let me ask you a question:

if there is evidence supporting argument A, and none supporting argument B, which do you believe? So far, your arguing for B. Please, do not ignore this. Why do you expect me to say, “OK, you’re right,” when I have provided you with ample data supporting me, and you have simply repeated your mantra? Please don’t ignore this as you have the rest.

No different than many your age. It’s okay it will pass, right around the first time you get a really good kick in the stomach. And you’ll know when that happens - You won’t like it at all - And you’ll remember me saying this.

Haha, I’m right again! Old people think they know everything because of experience, even though they can’t explain what they mean. How right I am, at such a young age.

Ha ha, I don’t have to “explain myself” really, poor, poor choice of words. Also, all you’ve said is that socialism is good and business is bad we need big government, hardly an explanation. You’ve not addressed any of my points about small government, but I guess you can’t really disagree so no problem.

That’s it, you must simply not have read a single word I’ve written. I have not said the first thing about socialism in this thread. All I’ve done is dismantle your argument that the stimulus has not helped and that government hurts businesses. You still have not explained yourself.

And…that’s the problem. We need long lasting jobs and in fact we could have had them by now had Obama done it correctly. I explained that earlier.

No, you didn’t. You simply said the government is bad. YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED ANYTHING. If you have, quote it.

Good straw man, nice. Never said it was AND you know that. But, they could have actually stimulated the economy correctly and didn’t do it.

I agree, the stimulus package was nearly half tax credits, which don’t really work, as we’ve seen.

The fact is everytime that there is a tax cut the economy grows. PERIOD. LOL since when does takig more money out of the hands of the people help anyone? It doesn’t.

The fact is, everytime there is a tax INCREASE the economy grows, too. The economy grows, period. You’re not saying anything. In fact, growth was higher under Clinton’s higher tax rates than Bush’s low ones. Again, you ignore the documents I give you.

Interestingly, you make my argument for me. Taking money out of the economy won’t help, but it’s what you suggest when you call to cut spending. I think you’re confused.

It was people going to work for a real cause making real products. Yeah. What was Obama’s stimulus? Nonsense.

We didn’t do that BECAUSE YOU CALLED HIM A SOCIALIST, remember? If had HAD announced a sweeping job creation program, you’d STILL be on here calling him a communist. Quit moving the goalposts. Do you want the government involved in the economy or not?

My point is if you’re going to throw a gazillion dollars at a problem at least throw it in the right direction -Obama didn’t do that.

He tried to do that, and the republicans blocked it. Remember? Have you paid attention at all?

[quote]Tell me Mister Marist, how much should a person making say 80-k be paying to the federal government each year.

(I’m gonna love this)
[/quote]

That’s only half a question. What’s the budget look like? What’s the median income? It all depends. Right wingers are the only ones dead-focused on specific rates.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Oh, I have checked it out. Are you surprised there’s revenue growth? The economy grows, revenue grows. It grows all the time over the long run no matter how you tweak the tax rates. But in fact, revenues grow more slowly when large tax cuts are given, as the Bush tax cuts have proved, adding over $1 trillion to the debt, and as Reagan’s tax cuts proved back in the 80s (also, the decrease in revenue from Reagan’s tax cuts were partially offset by a rise in payroll taxes, so the pitiful effectiveness of his tax cuts still looks better than it really was). [/quote]

Tax cuts did not harm the economy. What hurt the economy was that there were tax cuts in the fact of spending increases. That’s pretty simple don’t make it more than it is. What needs to be done is taxes must be cut and spending cut along with it. If that ever happens we will have the most robust economy in the history of our country - You socialists would hate that huh? What could you possible say in the face of that sort of success?

[/quote]

Spending increases? You mean like two unfunded wars kept off the books? You mean like a prescrption drug benefit that was not paid for? You do realize that republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency when this occurred, right? No wonder the socialists can’t get a hearing–they’re blamed for everyone’s mistakes.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I request again that you explain how you make a profit without customers.[/quote]

Been through that twice now. Want it a third time? Okay, but this is it. The more businesses that are created (by individuals not government) the more people are employed. The more jobs there are the more spending there is. You see Ryan when people spend they become customers. Just as I said below.

[quote]Once again, when business is booming people have jobs. When people have money in their pocket, through those jobs, they become customers. It’s simple, government does NOT help this process.

Yeah, I guess they don’t help–other than providing the roads they drive on to get to your business, providing public education that helped give them the skills they need to earn the money they spend at your business, providing police officers to make sure the area in which your business is located is safe, provide the legal system that enables your business to function, as well as directly putting money in the pockets of your customers for them to spend.

Other than that, you’re right.[/quote]

You’ve just mentioned most of the things that government is supposed to do. A small government can do all that. Whereas a large government builds an Education Deapartment and passes Obama care, and subsidises 1 out of every 5 households, and generally causes people to become dependent on government. BAD — BAD —BAD!!

[quote]Wow, do you have that wrong. Ther older you get the more knowledge and wisdom that you accumulate. How can you or anyone deny that? Again some people don’t go this route, but they were never very bright to begin with. And not all young people think they know everything Just the young people on this site I actually have helped a lot of interns from our local collge.

Uh, I know plenty of dumb old people. Do you not? Did you not see all the signs at the town hall healthcare debates: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare?” What is wisdom? All you’ve done is replace one empty word with another. Meanwhile, you still haven’t provided anyone with a single fact to buttress your argument.[/quote]

So your argument is now what? That age never gives people wisdom? And that all 20 somethings college students can take over the world? Ha. Is that why when the government (you love the government) needs to elect a President they don’t even allow anyone under 35 to even run? You can’t run for President of the United States because the GOVERNMENT doesn’t think - because of your age - That you’re up to it. Go figure huh?

21 to drink

18 to vote and serve your country in the military

16 in most states to drive a car.

I guess age matter Ryan - why don’t you give that one a rest and get back to your beloved socialism. At least on that topic you can swing enough smoke and mirrors to keep changing the specific topic.

If I were an economics student, I’d probably agree with your positions.

Yes, if you understood economics you would agree with me. Glad you see my point. And if you were actually in business or had any sort of experience other than asking people if they want french fires with their burger you’d also agree with me.

[quote]Not really you’re just full of youthful hubris.

Not really. Charts and graphs do not equal hubris. Let me ask you a question:

if there is evidence supporting argument A, and none supporting argument B, which do you believe? So far, your arguing for B. Please, do not ignore this. Why do you expect me to say, “OK, you’re right,” when I have provided you with ample data supporting me, and you have simply repeated your mantra? Please don’t ignore this as you have the rest.[/quote]

You’ve supplied nothing to suuport your flimsy socialist argument. But life has shown us all that socialism doesn’t work and never has in the long run. But yeah get those charts up there Ryan let’s see what you have.

[quote]No different than many your age. It’s okay it will pass, right around the first time you get a really good kick in the stomach. And you’ll know when that happens - You won’t like it at all - And you’ll remember me saying this.

Haha, I’m right again! Old people think they know everything because of experience, even though they can’t explain what they mean. How right I am, at such a young age.[/quote]

I did explain it to you. But now that you’ve said that I’ve noticed a trend here. You need everything spoon fed to you. What I mean in the above is that life is sloppy, not at all like school, not even a little. Life will treat you unfairly, it will kick you while your down. This can be applied to many different scenarios, but especially to business. You fight against many things in business in the real world.

-Employee and customer theft

-Overbearing regulation.

-Excessive taxes local, state and federal

-Tough competition in a free marketplace (I wouldn’t have it any other way, but it’s not easy)

-Raising the money to begin a business, a most difficult task in the best of times, near impossible in times like these.

The list could go one but you get the idea. It’s tough out there kid. I am not putting you down for going to college I have my business degree, those were good times. But, it’s not the real world and stop pretending that it is. I don’t know everything, I never said I did. But I do know what I’m talking about when it comes to operating a real business in the real world. Saying that you know more about that is like me saying that I can play baseball better than Derek Jeter because I’ve studied the game and watch it all the time on TV - Less a matter of age than of actual experience (which you get with age by the way).

Sorry man, it’s not an insult, just a fact.

[quote]And…that’s the problem. We need long lasting jobs and in fact we could have had them by now had Obama done it correctly. I explained that earlier.

No, you didn’t. You simply said the government is bad. YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED ANYTHING. If you have, quote it.[/quote]

Oh but I did. Go back to the part where I told you about jobs in the free market system. And how employees hired by new and growing business spend money in the market place.

You have to stop ignoring this stuff -

[quote]The fact is everytime that there is a tax cut the economy grows. PERIOD. LOL since when does takig more money out of the hands of the people help anyone? It doesn’t.

The fact is, everytime there is a tax INCREASE the economy grows,[/quote]

Then why don’t we just take 90% of everything that people make and we’ll have a booming economy. Makes perfect sense to you right? That would certainly encourage a person to put their ass on the line, seek a small business loan and work 12 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week. yeah I would have done that had the government taken 90% of everything that I made.

Perfect! (Eye Roll)

Taking money out of the economy won’t help, but it’s what you suggest when you call to cut spending. I think you’re confused.

No my friend you are the one confused. Read this, ready? I DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS TO ON ANYTHING. Got it now?

[quote]It was people going to work for a real cause making real products. Yeah. What was Obama’s stimulus? Nonsense.

We didn’t do that BECAUSE YOU CALLED HIM A SOCIALIST, remember? If had HAD announced a sweeping job creation program, you’d STILL be on here calling him a communist. Quit moving the goalposts. Do you want the government involved in the economy or not?[/quote]

I never said I wanted a jobs program. In fact, that’s the kind of crap that harms the economy long-term. Artificial jobs which go away is not going to help the economy.

[quote]Tell me Mister Marist, how much should a person making say 80-k be paying to the federal government each year.

(I’m gonna love this)

That’s only half a question. What’s the budget look like? What’s the median income? It all depends. Right wingers are the only ones dead-focused on specific rates.
[/quote]

I loved it more than I thought - You don’t really want to walk down that road do you Ryan? No, and I don’t blame you. It’s a path that will only make your argument look bad.

[ZEB]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No wonder the socialists can’t get a hearing–they’re blamed for everyone’s mistakes.[/quote]

I know those poor misunderstood socialists. Hey, I have an idea, maybe you can get a “Socialists Are Cool” club going at your school. Huh? Whuda ya say man? You can put up posters of Marx, Lenin, Stalin even Leon Trotsky-(I had the trotsky’s two months ago after an evening of beer and hot peppers). You like the addition of Stalin? It’s not like he ever killed anyone he was a good ole’ boy who was just misunderstood.

Yeah, this is really coming together.

On a side note what happens when you graduate someday and have to get a job in this horrible capitalist society? Can you cope? I don’t think that the US is turning socialist any time soon.