Another question for d&M
- Thread starter Duff Miver
- Start date
.....when the economy tanks and unemployment goes up, there is less of a tax base to gather taxes from.
i used to get a good kick out of these nitwits who stood by the tax break as being the savior for a business. when i had my shop and people said this to me i told them i need customers not tax breaks. I need people to have more money in their pockets which means having jobs. Not tax breaks that put hardly anything in the pockets of the middle class.
Let these rich neo con fucks keep crushing the middle class cause u know they will cry when they do so much damage, their businesses don't make dick, cause the spenders (middle class) have no money.
Let these rich neo con fucks keep crushing the middle class cause u know they will cry when they do so much damage, their businesses don't make dick, cause the spenders (middle class) have no money.
I certainly hope you're not implying that Republicans would intentionally try to mislead the public on this.
One look at Chad's chart reveals how we all benefit from trickle-down economics...
OK, maybe not so much...
Exactly right Spongy. No businessman who's worth a shit worries about taxes. Give me all the customers and I won't have any worry about taxes.:0074
Duff:
I am not a Republican. I am just stating a fact. Less taxpayers = less tax revenue. I did not say LOWER TAXES. I said less taxpayers.
There is a case to be made that lower taxes will increase employment as the job creators ( the wealthy) will have more money to invest in their businesses. Seriously, when was the last time the homeless guy on the street corner offered someone a job?
Anyway, in this environment, banks are not lending and people in the business community are scared - they are not investing in their business and they are not hiring because they do not know what the business environment is going to be? What will happen with Obamacare? What other regulatory risks to our business are out there?
if they are fearful (as they are now), they will hoard cash until the future is clearer.
I am not a Republican. I am just stating a fact. Less taxpayers = less tax revenue. I did not say LOWER TAXES. I said less taxpayers.
There is a case to be made that lower taxes will increase employment as the job creators ( the wealthy) will have more money to invest in their businesses. Seriously, when was the last time the homeless guy on the street corner offered someone a job?
Anyway, in this environment, banks are not lending and people in the business community are scared - they are not investing in their business and they are not hiring because they do not know what the business environment is going to be? What will happen with Obamacare? What other regulatory risks to our business are out there?
if they are fearful (as they are now), they will hoard cash until the future is clearer.
u give the homeless guy a thousand bucks he will spend it in a week. U give a business a tax cut who says he is gonna use it to reinvest in his company? Putting money in the hands of the middle class is what creates jobs. Decent living wages makes a family happy and they spend money on things they want. That is how u create jobs because now business have to hire to handle all the customers. My point is that if u gave every middle Class family 50 thousand to spend as they want u would shrink unemployment down to nothing because this forces business to hire. People need jobs to get the economy going not a party that tries to kill wages for their very own people and get a hard on watching companies move overseas to make more of a profit at the sacrifice of their very own people. trickle down economics has never worked and never would in this greedy country. How can anyone after all the evidence think it would?
SSD... perhaps you could make that case then. Being they (the wealthy) already control 90% of the wealth in this country, I'm wondering how much more they need so they can "invest in their businesses"?
Btw... although I don't agree with some of your views, I appreciate that you're willing to make an argument to support your views. As you've probably noticed, intelligent debate from the conservative point of view seems to be under-represented in this forum lately.
Putting $ in the hands of the middle class may create jobs but they would most likely be service sector jobs - like restaurants, salons, etc. Middle class people do not create factories.
The rich get richer is a true axiom. I am as alarmed as you are by the chart that Muff posted regarding the widening wealth gap. I had this discussion with my father-in-law many years ago before he was my father-in-law - he taught statistics and probabilities at a university and we were discussing a book that he was asked to write a foreword. I am amazed at how correct he was on this - he has severe Alzheimer's now and has no idea as to how point on he was in that discussion.
I'm not sure at this point on how to fix the unemployment issue. IMHO, the path the FED and the past 2 admins has taken is wrong. I would have rather the US economy tanked epically, and we went through 2-3-4-5 years of pure suckiness and pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps. We'd be in a better position for the future - look up Iceland + banking crisis and look at what they did and how they are flourishing now. Monetizing our own debt, recapitalizing the big banks, inflating asset classes and devaluing the US Dollar is not the way to prosperity. Under these smoke and mirror conditions, I am not sure how to fix our economy. Personally, it is a dog and pony show across the board and I think we are going to crash again only this time, much much harder than in 2008 strictly BECAUSE of what our "leaders" have tried to do.
I hope that I am wrong on it.
The rich get richer is a true axiom. I am as alarmed as you are by the chart that Muff posted regarding the widening wealth gap. I had this discussion with my father-in-law many years ago before he was my father-in-law - he taught statistics and probabilities at a university and we were discussing a book that he was asked to write a foreword. I am amazed at how correct he was on this - he has severe Alzheimer's now and has no idea as to how point on he was in that discussion.
I'm not sure at this point on how to fix the unemployment issue. IMHO, the path the FED and the past 2 admins has taken is wrong. I would have rather the US economy tanked epically, and we went through 2-3-4-5 years of pure suckiness and pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps. We'd be in a better position for the future - look up Iceland + banking crisis and look at what they did and how they are flourishing now. Monetizing our own debt, recapitalizing the big banks, inflating asset classes and devaluing the US Dollar is not the way to prosperity. Under these smoke and mirror conditions, I am not sure how to fix our economy. Personally, it is a dog and pony show across the board and I think we are going to crash again only this time, much much harder than in 2008 strictly BECAUSE of what our "leaders" have tried to do.
I hope that I am wrong on it.
1.) People with money to invest do not create jobs until and unless they see a demand which will produce a profit from that job. The homeless guy on the corner will not be offered a job unless he can produce a profit for someone. There is no altruism in capitalism.
A strong middle class spends on consumption and creates the demand which creates jobs.
2.) Obamacare is the derogatory term coined by Republicans for the Affordable Health Care Act. That act is intended to make health care more readily available and at lower per patient cost. The CBO says that is so. If you know a more competent source than the CBO, name it.
3.) Trickle-down, or whatever name you want to give it has been proven not to work.
Chicken vs the egg argument - demand creates jobs....or people with jobs (having money to spend) created demand.....all depends on how you want to look at it.
Either way, it is a symbiotic relationship - BOTH are needed.
My point of view? Risk should be rewarded. If a business owner is going to take on all the risk, to build a factory or whatever and create jobs, that person should be rewarded for taking that risk - much more so than the employee who is hired to make the widgets. That said, the widening ratio in the wealth gap is alarming.
Going back to the symbiotic relationship issue - with this wealth gap, it is no longer working that way and is unsustainable.
I do not use 'Obamacare" as an insult - it is a more widely recognized term than the "Affordable Healthcare Act".
Either way, it is a symbiotic relationship - BOTH are needed.
My point of view? Risk should be rewarded. If a business owner is going to take on all the risk, to build a factory or whatever and create jobs, that person should be rewarded for taking that risk - much more so than the employee who is hired to make the widgets. That said, the widening ratio in the wealth gap is alarming.
Going back to the symbiotic relationship issue - with this wealth gap, it is no longer working that way and is unsustainable.
I do not use 'Obamacare" as an insult - it is a more widely recognized term than the "Affordable Healthcare Act".
Perhaps we can agree that the middle class needs to be strengthened.
Lower taxes for the rich and the resultant deficits are not the way to accomplish that. Historical fact.
Lower taxes for the rich and the resultant deficits are not the way to accomplish that. Historical fact.
Yes - the middle class needs to be strengthened - no doubt - the consumer is the engine of this economy now. But, people are scared. The savings rate for US is finally starting to climb but unfortunately, that is not what THIS economy needs because we are totally based on consumption. Americans are finally becoming wiser and are saving and it is part of the problem - like the medicine is killing the patient.
When TARP and the Stimulus went through, ALL that money should have been shifted to Main Street, not Wall street and things would have been better.
Put a 12-month freeze on mortgage payments - you pay your principal but not your interest and the interest does not accrue. With the amount of money that the banks have received, they can live for a year w/o the interest - it would give all homeowners a year to 'breathe' and catch up on bills, debt, etc.
When TARP and the Stimulus went through, ALL that money should have been shifted to Main Street, not Wall street and things would have been better.
Put a 12-month freeze on mortgage payments - you pay your principal but not your interest and the interest does not accrue. With the amount of money that the banks have received, they can live for a year w/o the interest - it would give all homeowners a year to 'breathe' and catch up on bills, debt, etc.
Ok, hold on a minute. This is complete bullshit. Yes, Obamacare was meant to give free access to healthcare to many people that don't have it today.
But not at a lower per patient cost. Not hardly. Costs will increase signficantly under Obamacare. There are 2 key "provisions" that the CBO had to include in the "cost" of the bill - 1. Signficant tax increases on investment (this does nothing to lower patient cost - it is just an wealth transfer) and 2. The CBO was forced to assume that the Doc Fix (the adjustment to Medicare reimbursement to docs) NEVER gets applied every year going forward. Of course, we know that EVERY year the government passes the doc fix to ensure that the decrease in the fee schedules that were supposed to happen actually does.
Did you really think that by adding 30 million more folks to the insurance roll - many of who are sick and have pent up demand for insurance - would actually DECREASE the cost per person? Wow - you almost had me thinking you were smarter than you were.
A good axiom for you to remember is the 80/20 rule - 20% of the folks constitute 80% of the health care costs. Of the $30M that don't have coverage today, how many of them are really healthy? If they were, they wouldn't have messed with the other 250 million of other folks insurance coverage.
You can claim Obamacare was about access and installing another entitlement that our country can't afford and I'd agree - but lowering the cost per insured? Hardly......
More on the Doc Fix Effect
More on the Doc Fix Effect
In explicit contradiction to the establishment media?s reporting over the past two days, the CBO has in fact reported that the Obamacare bill will result in an increase in the deficit spending of the United States by at least $109 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of reporting this indisputable fact, the media has been pushing the Obama and Democrat line that Obamacare will ?save? $138 billion over the next 10 years in deficit spending versus present projections as if it was the gospel truth.
The big problem with that reporting, and Obama?s claim that Obamacare will be ?one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history? is that the CBO has explicitly reported that when the ?doctor fix? is enacted, the $138 billion in paper ?savings? disappear and a $59 billion dollar deficit over 10 years is created by Obamacare over 10 years:
Removing the ?doctor fix? meant that the present CBO scoring includes an unrealistic 21% immediate cut in doctor fees in its projections, hence resulting in the illusory CBO number of $138 billion in paper deficit ?savings? that the establishment media and President Obama are so happy to falsely repeat ad nauseam.
In addition, the CBO also has explicitly stated that another $50 billion over 10 years in federal spending will be required to administer the massive new federal entitlement programs to be created by Obamacare:
There is also the 10-6 dodge. One of the reasons the bill appears deficit-neutral in the first decade is that it begins collecting revenue right away but doesn?t have to pay for most benefits until 2014. That?s 10 years of revenues to pay for 6 years of benefits, something unlikely to happen again unless the country agrees to go without health care for four years every decade.
This is a stinking turd that will hamper our country until we can repeal it. Its unreal that the Dems could fool most of the public (well, not most, as at least half do want it repealed).
Health care isn't free - and neither is Obamacare. I guess Obama just felt he had increased our deficit quite enough yet.....
All the above numbers are facts - direct from your CBO. See the light yet?
More on the Doc Fix Effect
In explicit contradiction to the establishment media?s reporting over the past two days, the CBO has in fact reported that the Obamacare bill will result in an increase in the deficit spending of the United States by at least $109 billion over the next 10 years. Instead of reporting this indisputable fact, the media has been pushing the Obama and Democrat line that Obamacare will ?save? $138 billion over the next 10 years in deficit spending versus present projections as if it was the gospel truth.
The big problem with that reporting, and Obama?s claim that Obamacare will be ?one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history? is that the CBO has explicitly reported that when the ?doctor fix? is enacted, the $138 billion in paper ?savings? disappear and a $59 billion dollar deficit over 10 years is created by Obamacare over 10 years:
Removing the ?doctor fix? meant that the present CBO scoring includes an unrealistic 21% immediate cut in doctor fees in its projections, hence resulting in the illusory CBO number of $138 billion in paper deficit ?savings? that the establishment media and President Obama are so happy to falsely repeat ad nauseam.
In addition, the CBO also has explicitly stated that another $50 billion over 10 years in federal spending will be required to administer the massive new federal entitlement programs to be created by Obamacare:
There is also the 10-6 dodge. One of the reasons the bill appears deficit-neutral in the first decade is that it begins collecting revenue right away but doesn?t have to pay for most benefits until 2014. That?s 10 years of revenues to pay for 6 years of benefits, something unlikely to happen again unless the country agrees to go without health care for four years every decade.
This is a stinking turd that will hamper our country until we can repeal it. Its unreal that the Dems could fool most of the public (well, not most, as at least half do want it repealed).
Health care isn't free - and neither is Obamacare. I guess Obama just felt he had increased our deficit quite enough yet.....
All the above numbers are facts - direct from your CBO. See the light yet?
Hey, Maggot, you slimy POS, why don't you answer the original question?
Here, just in case you've forgotten -
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=442908
And stop your vile, foul language. there are precious children reading this forum.
So Mags doesn't want to see the government spend $10.9 billion per year to insure 30 million people and prevent insurance companies (like the one he works for) from rescinding coverage every time a patient gets sick and becomes a liability rather than a source of revenue.
Understandable. We know who butters Mags' bread.
