Time to admit Obamanomics has failed

[Imawhosure]

Paul Krugman of the New York TImes has some interesting observations

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

 

in an article "The Angry Rich"

 

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

 

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

 

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

 

 

Ok, then you check it out yourself----------------->you take everyone making over 10 million a year, drop them in the the Midwest.........just the Midwest mind you, and guess what...........their money is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the incomes of just that region. The middle class is where the money is, period. All the rhetoric is just smoke and mirrors to make you feel better, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Lets put it this way----------------->User taxes! Do you drink beer? Alcohol of any type? Adult beverages purchased from a retail store? Let us suppose you do; and you drink a 12 pack of beer a week. The user taxes on that (along with user taxes on fuel, and virtually everything else up to and including toilet paper) is outrageous. And yet, the rich guy only drinks a 12 pack a week also. That is not fair, is it? He is paying waaaaaaaaaay less than you, isn't he? How can this be?

 

Well, it is because you, your neighbors money, and everyone else in your areas cash, is faaaaaaar more than the rich guys. In other words, to really get anything, they gotta FLEECE YOU and your friends. Of course, you don't look at it that way. They have you conditioned to think bassackwards worrying about what the rich guy is paying. Fleece him, you say. And so, they start talking about bilking him a little, and you say, yay team!!!!

 

If someone has made 2,4, 6, 8, or 10 million for 2 or 3yrs, he has already paid his taxes. He has his money. And if he has a business and says screw it, the government is trying to cut to deep into my profits and sells it, or collapses it, he still has his money from the years before. But guess what, his employees don't have a job, and his employer won't be hiring anyone for sure, he will just make his current employees work harder for less if even decides to keep his business and not take his money and run.

 

How are you going to legislate that? And are you even trying to figure a way to legislate that, cause if you are, we really are the USSAR.

 

Haven't you heard, the recession is over!!!! Only thing is, nobody is hiring because business is scared to death of................guess who!!!!! Blame whomever you like for this jobless recovery, but those who are aware know exactly why it is the way it is, so all your spinning is for naught. If you think that by raising taxes on the rich is the way to go for the creation of jobs, so be it, and God Bless America. Whenever companys or corporations bottomline falls, what is the first thing they do? LAYOFF, which means NO HIRING!!!! If the government takes more of their money, is your math different then ours? Does this mean they will make more, or less money?

 

Even you can figure this out, I know it, especially if you try hard.

 

So all I can fathom is you don't want to admit the truth, along with your liberal friends. Either that, or you actually do want to destroy the greatest country this planet has ever seen. This is not rocket science--------->rich own the businesses, rich do the hiring----------->we do the working----------->they pay us. If the government makes their bottomline fall-------------->some of us are going to lose our jobs--------------->and few businesses are going to hire meaning------->JOBLESS RECOVERY.

[Trimdingman]

Do lower taxes always translate into more jobs? What I don't understand about this argument in the US is that you seem to think that cutting taxes will automatically mean more jobs. But the problem is that in Europe we have higher taxes and yet in some countries we have more jobs (as a % of the total workforce available for work).

 

This kind of makes me question whether the US has already taken taxes a low as needed. Would cutting tax and spending actually make a big enough difference to change anything? Where's the evidence?

 

If you do cut taxes then it seem to me that you need a big cut to stimulate the economy. The US welfare and social security spending is already low. The only way I could see the US making a big enough cut in tax to get things moving again is maybe by cutting defence spending by at least 20%. But then surely you just make a lot of soldiers and factory workers involved in making weapons unemployed.

 

That's why I question whether in the US cutting taxes is going to help much. Your all ready cutting away in California and that's not helping is it?

 

It's well known that in the 30's Germany and America spent their way to economic salvation by investing in infrastructure. That rescued both economies at the time. In the UK we actually suffered more because we didn't do that. By 1939 Germany had lots of shiny air planes to bomb Europe with and we were desperately racing to build an airforce. Back in the 30's the British Economy was much like the US. E.g. Low tax and Spend. It didn't work then it won't work now.

 

 

Cutting taxes will mean less government. Less government will bring back runaway businesses from China. We experimented with big government in Ontario in the early 1990s. Businesses fled to greener pastures. Big government kills jobs. High taxes breeds big government. Cut taxes and businesses will locate there. You have to cut the person off welfare before you give him a job. The job will not come first, or if it does, he may not be willing to give up his free ride to take it.

 

You have X numjber of people on the dole, either directly collecting unemployment benefits, or "working" for some government social agency producing nothing. Taxes have to be increased to pay for this. Increased taxes means less spending, so more people lose their jobs. Taxes have to be increased to pay for this. People will again spend less. More people get laid off. This time the government is sneaky. They just print up the money instead of raising taxes. The dollar gets so diluted that it is really worthless. The country runs on blind faith like some religious cult. Finally the whole house of cards collapses.

 

The socialist policies of FDR and others in the 1930s resulted in the Great Depression and World War II. They were a collossal failure of Biblical proportions. We won the war by sheer luck. Germany could have easily gotten the bomb first, or Hitler could have been a smart sane man instead of a religious maniac. Japan could have attacked the Soviet Union instead of Pearl Harbour. The recession of the 1930s would have been over in a year or two if not for massive government intervention. World War II would have never happened.

[rn4]

Cutting taxes will mean less government. Less government will bring back runaway businesses from China. We experimented with big government in Ontario in the early 1990s. Businesses fled to greener pastures. Big government kills jobs. High taxes breeds big government. Cut taxes and businesses will locate there. You have to cut the person off welfare before you give him a job. The job will not come first, or if it does, he may not be willing to give up his free ride to take it.

 

You have X numjber of people on the dole, either directly collecting unemployment benefits, or "working" for some government social agency producing nothing. Taxes have to be increased to pay for this. Increased taxes means less spending, so more people lose their jobs. Taxes have to be increased to pay for this. People will again spend less. More people get laid off. This time the government is sneaky. They just print up the money instead of raising taxes. The dollar gets so diluted that it is really worthless. The country runs on blind faith like some religious cult. Finally the whole house of cards collapses.

 

The socialist policies of FDR and others in the 1930s resulted in the Great Depression and World War II. They were a collossal failure of Biblical proportions. We won the war by sheer luck. Germany could have easily gotten the bomb first, or Hitler could have been a smart sane man instead of a religious maniac. Japan could have attacked the Soviet Union instead of Pearl Harbour. The recession of the 1930s would have been over in a year or two if not for massive government intervention. World War II would have never happened.

 

 

You have any facts to back any of this nonsense up.

[Edstock]

The socialist policies of FDR and others in the 1930s resulted in the Great Depression Charmingly ignorant. Uh, the Wall St. crash of 1929 started the Depression, which was exacerbated by the ineffectual Herbert Hoover, FDR's predecessor, so that the Depression was fully established by the time FDR took office, in January, 1934. and World War II. Hitler's rise to power had nothing to do with "The socialist policies of FDR and others in the 1930s". The Nazis found their way to power with the collapse of the world economy. They were a collossal failure of Biblical proportions. Please itemize these failures. We won the war by sheer luck. No, we won the war because we out-managed them (remediate your ignorance and study Luftwaffe/OKH procurement problems) and we had more resources. Germany could have easily gotten the bomb first, Only in your little mind. The Anti-semitic Nazis drove virtually all of the "A" grade physicists out of the country, leaving Heisenberg with second-raters. or Hitler could have been a smart sane man instead of a religious maniac. A "sane" Hitler would not have gone to war. Japan could have attacked the Soviet Union instead of Pearl Harbour. Now, that's really stupid. Japan was busy assimilating Manchuria and parts of China, and had NO need of any part of Russian Siberia. They attacked Pearl because Japan needed control of the Pacific to gain control of supplies of oil and rubber in the south. The recession of the 1930s would have been over in a year or two if not for massive government intervention. Well, FDR cut back intervention in 1937, and the Depression got worse. World War II would have never happened. You're entitled to your benighted little opinion. Most historians contend that WW2 was inevitable because of the Versailles Treaty and the economic crises that followed gave Hitler the conditions he could take advantage of.

 

Edited September 22, 2010 by Edstock

[Trimdingman]

You have any facts to back any of this nonsense up.

 

 

It is there. It is history. Socialism was practiced by much of the world at that time. The Great Depression and World War II were the result. You could not have made up a worse case scenario if you tried. Socialism is still being practiced in much of the world, including Europe and the United States. You already know the rest. It is coming very soon, and it is going to be even worse.

 

Edstock hides his cut and paste non-opinions inside of a quote box so they cannot be copied, so any rebuttal is out of context. Look at history. Don't have someone else interpret it for you. Just look at it yourself.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Trimdingman

[Critic]

Trimdingbat's bunker

 

[Edstock]

It is there. It is history. Socialism was practiced by much of the world at that time. Please supply proof that socialism was "practiced by much of the world at that time" — if you can. The Great Depression and World War II were the result. Are you on drugs? The Depression and WW2 were not started as a result of socialism that was NOT "practiced by much of the world at that time". You could not have made up a worse case scenario if you tried. Socialism is still being practiced in much of the world, including Europe and the United States. You already know the rest. It is coming very soon, and it is going to be even worse.

 

Edstock hides his cut and paste non-opinions inside of a quote box so they cannot be copied, I don't hide anything, but you obviously have problems. Try highlighting with your little mouse, then go "Control-C" (that's copy), then go "Control-V" (that's paste) Even YOU can do it. so any rebuttal is out of context. Look at history. Don't have someone else interpret it for you. Just look at it yourself. Try reading history, don't just look at it. This may be part of your comprehension problem.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Edstock

[Ford Jellymoulds]

 

 

 

Twice now I've seen you advocate for less Military spending and more welfare spending. You seem to be portraying yourself as a left wing tree hugger.

 

 

 

T-Stag is not a tree hugger, more like a bloody idiot & right wing upper class twit who likes pushing broken down shitty Triumph's to the nearest garage most of the time for fun.

 

Did you make it to the Goodwood Revival T-Stag?

 

Your be alright Stateside Obama will get Helicopter Ben to print some more money soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cocheese]

T-Stag is not a tree hugger, more like a bloody idiot & right wing upper class twit

 

Why would a "right wing upper class twit" push for more benefits to the poor? Remember, according to you and your ilk, the right hates the poor.

 

Sorry, looks like common sense foiled your statement yet again.

[Trimdingman]

Replying to Edstock the gutless clueless wonder: Socialism was practiced by much of the world during the 1930s. You had Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini, Chamberlain. I could look up others. People looked for leadership out of the hard times. Socialists took advantage to gain power. Socialist protectionism caused depression and friction which led to war. Harding solved the depression of 1920 by keeping government out. Good times followed a short-lived down period. This depression was deeper than the one in the 1930s, which was botched by the socialists. The same thinking has placed us in a similar situation again. The US is broke. All they have for collateral is nukes. Will they use them or let their empire collapse like the Soviet Union?

Edited September 23, 2010 by Trimdingman

[Imawhosure]

Replying to Edstock the gutless clueless wonder: Socialism was practiced by much of the world during the 1930s. You had Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mussolini, Chamberlain. I could look up others. People looked for leadership out of the hard times. Socialists took advantage to gain power. Socialist protectionism caused depression and friction which led to war. Harding solved the depression of 1920 by keeping government out. Good times followed a short-lived down period. This depression was deeper than the one in the 1930s, which was botched by the socialists. The same thinking has placed us in a similar situation again. The US is broke. All they have for collateral is nukes. Will they use them or let their empire collapse like the Soviet Union?

 

 

Trim, I usually agree with your logic, but I go along with Edstock on this one where the WWII parallels come in. I think you really should look deeper into it, for while I like nothing more than prove a liberal is dilluting facts to support their view, he is pretty accurate in this instance.

 

1. The Versailles treaty actually brought Hitler to power because the European allies screwed Germany to death in the armistice of WWI. Add the world wide depression and walla, this is how you get a Hitler.

 

2. The whole world has moved much further towards socialism today them back then, and has moved away from Communism/capitalism.

 

3. While FDRs programs are painted by some as socialism, only the way they have been handled by politicians that have followed pushed them into that category. Were it not for the handling of the fund that supplies SS, and the change by recent politicians on who is allowed to receive it, the programs would not only be solvent, but heralded as wonderful programs for the protection of the social fabric of the USA.

 

Let me say that where socialism raises its head always is AFTER programs are created. Liberals continuously try and change them to force the programs to do, what they were never intended to do. By adding on to programs like SS, liberals know that those who it originally was intended for will do everything in their power to insure it does not go broke. It is their modus aperendi!

 

Anyway, if you wish to draw a parallel between today and WWII, I shall give you one Mr Trim. Use it as often as you wish, because it is 100% accurate------------->During Hitlers rise to power and while he resided as chancellor, virtually 75% of his speeches blamed all the problems of Germany on the Jews. The Jews had to much. The Jews owned all the businesses. The Jews were evil. They showed Jews with hooked noses in cartoons in the newspapers counting their money.

 

Now then Mr Trim, since you know how Adolf Hitler described Jewry in his Germany, can you think of a synonym meaning the same thing today in the US of A?

 

I can Mr Trim, lol. Sounds almost like the wealthy people, the rich, the business owners!!!!

 

If you take Mr Obamas words, change RICH to JEWS, the rhetoric is virtually the same.

 

See, history teaches all things-) Jews did nothing but own businesses, and pay taxes.......far more taxes then the average person in Germany. They created most of the jobs! Somehow, they were villified. How dumb was the average German for listening to such nonsense now that you can look back in retrospect? Unbelievable, isn't it!?!?!

 

And yet, and yet, and yet.................lol, guess some Americans didn't read history either!!!!!!!!!! Nobody that is liberal in America wants to ask themselves 1 important question------->how can the person/people, who pay the lionshare of the taxes, while some people not only do not pay taxes, but get back far more then they put in.......be blamed for the country not having a large enough tax income? It is soooooo illogical and out there, it is funny. It shows how politicians SPIN things to the (as Mr Cap calls them) SHEEP, and the SHEEP fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

 

How can someone who has had 4 kids while on public assistance and gets all the help..........ever go to work........even when they get old enough to realize it is in their own best interest for them personally........because to do so will make them lose money!!!! The liberal government has created a never ending cycle of failure by trying to help them, LIBERALLY. Are you really helping?!?!?!?! I think if you really wanted to help them, you would get them a job, and you aren't going to have a snowballs chance in hell of doing that if you keep screwing the jew......errr, I mean the rich business owners who actually create jobs. I think you are killing them, and this country. We shall see what everyone else thinks, come November.........and in 2012.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Imawhosure

[Edstock]

Replying to Edstock the gutless clueless wonder: You're going to have to do better than this.    

 

Socialism was practiced by much of the world during the 1930s. No. There were no socialist countries in South America, or Asia or Africa (much of the world) during the 1930s. You had Hitler Nazi National Socialism was not socialism, but a fascist control system with private business, Roosevelt, Hardly a socialist government by any means, with Wall St. and private ownership, Stalin, Mussolini The Italian version of Nazi "socialism", Chamberlain As you know, the Prime Minister during the early and mid-30s was Stanley Baldwin, who was so socialist that there were giant Hunger Marches on London. It was one of those marches that passed through Cambridge university in the early 30s, that was seen by folks like Burgess, Maclean, Philby and Blunt, who were so disgusted with "socialist" England that they became spies for the Russians. I could look up others. You should. While you're doing that, be sure to read, and think a little about what you are reading, if you can. People looked for leadership out of the hard times. Socialists took advantage to gain power. Socialist protectionism caused depression. No, the financial instability of the cost of WW1 combined with the emergence of the US as the creditor to England and France and the rest of Europe as well, and the complete absence of US financial regulations for Wall St. trading caused the Depression. World wide tariff protectionism made it worse.  and friction which led to war. You don't pay attention, do you? Read about the consequences of the terms of the Versailles Treaty: they guaranteed another conflict. Harding solved the depression of 1920 by keeping government out. Good times followed a short-lived down period. This depression was deeper than the one in the 1930s, No, it wasn't deeper. The 1929 Depression affected more people. which was botched by the socialists. Please provide details on how the recovery from the Depression was "botched by the socialists". The same thinking has placed us in a similar situation again. The US is broke. All they have for collateral is nukes. Will they use them Use them on who? or let their empire What empire? collapse like the Soviet Union?

[Trimdingman]

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Communism was all the rage in elitist circles. Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. FDR was a socialist. England was socialist. Socialism was being experimented with everywhere. This socialism led to protectionism. Countries turned inward and restricted trade to protect their domestic industries. Hitler took advantage of this isolationism and pushed it to the limit until the worms finally turned and by then it was too late. The whole world was in flames. I am looking at the big picture. It is really quite simple if you just look at it yourself, and forget what you have been spoon fed. There was an economic downturn. Measures were taken to solve it. The result was a Great Depression and the worst war the world had ever seen. I say that the measures that were taken could not have possibly reaped a worse result. Anyone who says that these measures were a success is blind.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Communism was all the rage in elitist circles. And your point is? You do have a point? Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. ONE MORE TIME: fascism, or "national socialism" was not left-wing socialism, with state-owned factories. FDR was a socialist. England was socialist. NO. If you'd asked any committed British socialist of the era like George Bernard Shaw (you may have heard of him), they would have found that hysterically funny, as would their aristocratic graduates from such socialist institutions like Eton and Harrow. Socialism was being experimented with everywhere. ONE MORE TIME: No. There were no socialist countries in South America, or Asia or Africa (much of the world) during the 1930s This socialism led to protectionism. Please supply proof. Countries turned inward and restricted trade to protect their domestic industries. Hitler took advantage of this isolationism and pushed it to the limit until the worms finally turned and by then it was too late. The whole world was in flames. I am looking at the big picture. See a good opthamologist.  It is really quite simple if you just look at it yourself, and forget what you have been spoon fed. There was an economic downturn. Measures were taken to solve it. The result was a Great Depression and the worst war the world had ever seen. Funny, you said Harding's 1920 depression was worse: "This depression was deeper than the one in the 1930s", plus you've got the sequence wrong: There was a Great Depression. Measures were taken to solve it. The result was an economic downturn.  I say that the measures that were taken could not have possibly reaped a worse result. Anyone who says that these measures were a success is blind. The measures taken to fight the Depression in North America kept people from starving, and that is success by any measure: it's not nice to die of starvation, like the poor Ukrainians did in the millions due to Uncle Joe's man-made famine.

[Imawhosure]

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Communism was all the rage in elitist circles. Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a socialist. FDR was a socialist. England was socialist. Socialism was being experimented with everywhere. This socialism led to protectionism. Countries turned inward and restricted trade to protect their domestic industries. Hitler took advantage of this isolationism and pushed it to the limit until the worms finally turned and by then it was too late. The whole world was in flames. I am looking at the big picture. It is really quite simple if you just look at it yourself, and forget what you have been spoon fed. There was an economic downturn. Measures were taken to solve it. The result was a Great Depression and the worst war the world had ever seen. I say that the measures that were taken could not have possibly reaped a worse result. Anyone who says that these measures were a success is blind.

 

 

 

Trim really, come on.Hitler and Mussolini were socialists?!?!?!?! And Stalin we all know, was an out and out Communist.

 

I like you Trim, but I gotta go along with Edstock on this one, sorry.

 

Now, if you have proof, I can always change my mind. But, I have read recent history extensively for years, all different opinions, and never have I seen anyone you mention besides FDR tagged as a socialist. And the only reason FDR was has to do what SS security turned into, and not what it was originally intended for. FDR has/had no control over what happened to his programs after he was gone, so holding him responsible is ludicrous.

 

Let me put it to you this way-------------->if FDR was a socialist, then what is Obama? I mean, look here--------->FDR is a centrist compared to him, lol. It is the same as calling JFK a democrat. Today, JFKs economic policies would be considered conservative republicanism. I laugh hardily everytime I talk to a liberal that hates Reaganomics, but adores Kennedys economic approach. No 2 Presidents mirrored each other as far as economic policy so closely! And guess what, IT WORKED BOTH TIMES!!!!

 

Anyway Trim, I won't attack you for your opinion on who was Socialist back in the 40s as far as countries or political leaders. But, unless you do put forth some factoids to show they were in some respect socialist with that type of agenda, you are on your own on this one.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Trim really, come on.Hitler and Mussolini were socialists?!?!?!?! And Stalin we all know, was an out and out Communist.

 

I like you Trim, but I gotta go along with Edstock on this one, sorry.

 

Now, if you have proof, I can always change my mind. But, I have read recent history extensively for years, all different opinions, and never have I seen anyone you mention besides FDR tagged as a socialist. And the only reason FDR was has to do what SS security turned into, and not what it was originally intended for. FDR has/had no control over what happened to his programs after he was gone, so holding him responsible is ludicrous.

 

Let me put it to you this way-------------->if FDR was a socialist, then what is Obama? I mean, look here--------->FDR is a centrist compared to him, lol. It is the same as calling JFK a democrat. Today, JFKs economic policies would be considered conservative republicanism. I laugh hardily everytime I talk to a liberal that hates Reaganomics, but adores Kennedys economic approach. No 2 Presidents mirrored each other as far as economic policy so closely! And guess what, IT WORKED BOTH TIMES!!!!

 

Anyway Trim, I won't attack you for your opinion on who was Socialist back in the 40s as far as countries or political leaders. But, unless you do put forth some factoids to show they were in some respect socialist with that type of agenda, you are on your own on this one.

 

 

Your comparison of Kennedy and Reagan is way off base.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes both ballooned the deficit Kennedy's did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

 

The discussion is whether extending the Bush cuts for the top 1% will help bring the economy back. No one is seriously talking about letting the middle class rates expire. These cuts are being used as a bargaining chip right now. As stimulus, the tax cuts for the top1% don't do much because the spending by the highest level won't change either way. In any event, people making more than a million dollars don't pay the top rate due to deductions and tax avoidance schemes.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1

 

As far as taxing "Small Business" goes, you need to look at the Republican definition of a "Small Business" Partnerships like Bechtel, Hedge funds like George Soros', most successufl Holloywood actors, sports stars, Major law firm partnerships and even President Obama's book royalties of more then $4 million all count as small businesses under the Republican definition.

 

"The reason is the debate revolves around three types of businesses: partnerships, sole proprietorships and so-called S corporations, which often have one or two shareholders. These structures are popular because they allow profits and losses to be reported on business owners' personal tax returns without first going through a layer of corporate tax. Yet the Internal Revenue Service can't tell if the income comes from a small or large business or whether the entity had any employees at all. Obama, who last year earned more than 10 times as much from his work as an author as he did from his $400,000 presidential salary, reports that business income on his personal tax return the same way as does a shareholder in a machine shop with 50 employees."

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/obama-soros-are-among-small-businesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html

 

A business with no employees isn't going to create jobs regardless of the tax rate.

[grbeck]

They do pay taxes, eventhough many are exempt from Income Tax, and the working poor pay a larger percentager of their income in tax than the wealthy do. This is especially true when comparing those who only pay capital gains taxes.

 

So....how, exactly, does this prove that the rich should pay more taxes?

 

They also pay a larger percentage of their income for food, clothing, transportation, etc., than the wealthy do. Should we therefore force Ford, for example, to artificially lower the price of a Fusion or an F-150 so that people classified as poor can afford one, too?

 

Of course, the poor benefit more from government expenditures on schools, police, a strong defense, public sewer systems or even simple street-cleaning than the rich or the upper-middle class do. They cannot afford to insulate themselves from crime and pollution, or pay for a private school, as the rich and upper-middle class can and do.

[grbeck]

The discussion is whether extending the Bush cuts for the top 1% will help bring the economy back.

 

Actually, no, the debate is whether hiking taxes on the rich is a good idea with an economy that could best be described as "fragile" - see what happened in 1932 and 1937 for answers to that one.

 

The discussion is whether extending the Bush cuts for the top 1% will help bring the economy back. No one is seriously talking about letting the middle class rates expire. These cuts are being used as a bargaining chip right now. As stimulus, the tax cuts for the top1% don't do much because the spending by the highest level won't change either way. In any event, people making more than a million dollars don't pay the top rate due to deductions and tax avoidance schemes.

 

And, as has been explained on another thread, when rich people invest and save their money, it is available as capital for further investment, which is better, over the long run, for our economy.

 

As far as taxing "Small Business" goes, you need to look at the Republican definition of a "Small Business" Partnerships like Bechtel, Hedge funds like George Soros', most successufl Holloywood actors, sports stars, Major law firm partnerships and even President Obama's book royalties of more then $4 million all count as small businesses under the Republican definition.

 

"The reason is the debate revolves around three types of businesses: partnerships, sole proprietorships and so-called S corporations, which often have one or two shareholders. These structures are popular because they allow profits and losses to be reported on business owners' personal tax returns without first going through a layer of corporate tax. Yet the Internal Revenue Service can't tell if the income comes from a small or large business or whether the entity had any employees at all. Obama, who last year earned more than 10 times as much from his work as an author as he did from his $400,000 presidential salary, reports that business income on his personal tax return the same way as does a shareholder in a machine shop with 50 employees."

 

A business with no employees isn't going to create jobs regardless of the tax rate.

 

Except that any tax increase will be applied to all small businesses using the standard IRS definition, and that would include the hypothetical machine shop. The tax increase won't just apply to Obama or George Soros, because the IRS cannot distinguish between George Soros, Financier, and the G. Soros Machine and Tool Shop, as your post admits with this sentence:

 

Yet the Internal Revenue Service can't tell if the income comes from a small or large business or whether the entity had any employees at all.

[Imawhosure]

Your comparison of Kennedy and Reagan is way off base.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes both ballooned the deficit Kennedy's did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

 

The discussion is whether extending the Bush cuts for the top 1% will help bring the economy back. No one is seriously talking about letting the middle class rates expire. These cuts are being used as a bargaining chip right now. As stimulus, the tax cuts for the top1% don't do much because the spending by the highest level won't change either way. In any event, people making more than a million dollars don't pay the top rate due to deductions and tax avoidance schemes.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1

 

As far as taxing "Small Business" goes, you need to look at the Republican definition of a "Small Business" Partnerships like Bechtel, Hedge funds like George Soros', most successufl Holloywood actors, sports stars, Major law firm partnerships and even President Obama's book royalties of more then $4 million all count as small businesses under the Republican definition.

 

"The reason is the debate revolves around three types of businesses: partnerships, sole proprietorships and so-called S corporations, which often have one or two shareholders. These structures are popular because they allow profits and losses to be reported on business owners' personal tax returns without first going through a layer of corporate tax. Yet the Internal Revenue Service can't tell if the income comes from a small or large business or whether the entity had any employees at all. Obama, who last year earned more than 10 times as much from his work as an author as he did from his $400,000 presidential salary, reports that business income on his personal tax return the same way as does a shareholder in a machine shop with 50 employees."

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/obama-soros-are-among-small-businesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html

 

A business with no employees isn't going to create jobs regardless of the tax rate.

 

 

 

Oh come on!!!!!!!! You are kidding. You are, aren't you?!!?!?!?!?!?! The question is not the deficit, but rather if spending remained constant, would the budget have been balanced, or close to balanced.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges as usual.

 

If we work overtime and make 5 grand extra a year, but, our wifes spend 7 grand and put it further in the hole, does that mean we do not make more money for working overtime?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

Show the inflows from before, and after.......that is the key. We can always cut spending, but no matter how much we take in, if Washington craziness continues, it will make no difference.

 

And do not think for 1 instance I blame it all on liberals or democrats. Republicans have screwed the pooch also.

 

I am sure the reason this is so is because of the old saying that appears to be 100% accurate------->power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Only so many Presidents will come along in each of our lifetimes who will actually do something good for EVERYONE. Most will play party politics, and lean towards their base, which screws those who are not in their base. It takes one hell of a person to actually take a chance to believe that the OTHER SIDE will vote for them if they attempt to make things better for all. Mr Kennedy, and Mr Reagan are 2 of those people. If the bullet intended to kill Mr Reagan would have succeeded, his political legacy would have been totally different. He and Mr Kennedy are the only 2 Presidents even whispered to be added to one of our greatest National Monuments (Mount Rushmore) and rightfully so.

 

They both brought this country back from the brink, both had an economy in disaster come back to life, both had tremendous amounts of poor people become middle class and above, both stared down our enemies so well that they scared the hell out of them. That is a PRESIDENT no matter which party he/she comes from we can be proud of. I hope we find another one like them, and very, very, soon.......... no matter which party they reside in.

 

For those who wish to talk about Mr Kennedys indescretions implying that somehow this makes him less of a President, let me state what should be obvious (and this applies to Mr Clinton too) I/we should not care who is screwing who/whom in bed, as long as when they got out of that bed, they are not screwing us! I haven't heard of any thing remotely resembling these kind of actions from Mr Obama. Now then, if you had to choose between the 3, how many of you would choose Mr Obama as their 1st choice over Mr Kennedy or Mr Clinton!?!?!?! As we can plainly see, following perceived morality does NOT a good President make! I am sure Mr Reagan had a very nice time in Hollywood while he was an actor too. How many of us republican conservatives would like to throw him overboard?

 

Back to the point-------->Middle of the road democrats who are reading this obviously have a computer. You would be wise to access Mr Kennedys speeches, his reasoning, and his success by implementing the policies he put forth. Then access Mr Reagans. Do you notice a similarity? They both went against not only the opposing party, but their own. Both times, it worked. When America was contemplating its own death, they both told us how to save it. They made us believe, they told us that class envy was ridiculous. They pushed the idea that if we envied the rich, then we should become rich ourselves. Many did. Many jumped economic classes, and the light was shown.

 

If you are afraid, then you have no confidence in yourself. You are not involved. You need DADDY OBAMA. He likes that, kiss his ring. Tell your wife or husband. Maybe they will kiss DADDY OBAMAS ring to. Of course, he might then turn into Kennedy, which might make the rest of us happy; especially if he follows his economic policies while he is servicing..............oh, forget it, lololol.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Imawhosure

[Trimdingman]

Trim really, come on.Hitler and Mussolini were socialists?!?!?!?! And Stalin we all know, was an out and out Communist.

 

I like you Trim, but I gotta go along with Edstock on this one, sorry.

 

Now, if you have proof, I can always change my mind. But, I have read recent history extensively for years, all different opinions, and never have I seen anyone you mention besides FDR tagged as a socialist. And the only reason FDR was has to do what SS security turned into, and not what it was originally intended for. FDR has/had no control over what happened to his programs after he was gone, so holding him responsible is ludicrous.

 

Let me put it to you this way-------------->if FDR was a socialist, then what is Obama? I mean, look here--------->FDR is a centrist compared to him, lol. It is the same as calling JFK a democrat. Today, JFKs economic policies would be considered conservative republicanism. I laugh hardily everytime I talk to a liberal that hates Reaganomics, but adores Kennedys economic approach. No 2 Presidents mirrored each other as far as economic policy so closely! And guess what, IT WORKED BOTH TIMES!!!!

 

Anyway Trim, I won't attack you for your opinion on who was Socialist back in the 40s as far as countries or political leaders. But, unless you do put forth some factoids to show they were in some respect socialist with that type of agenda, you are on your own on this one.

 

 

Hitler formed the Nazi Party. It stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler was a socialist. Communism also falls under the socialist umbrella. Fascism is also socialist. Right wing is small government. Left wing, or socialist is big government. Fascism, Naziism, and Communism are big government. I came to these conclusions independently. Then I looked on the internet, and found that these views are widely shared. Roosevelt et al were openly socialist and Communist sympathizers. When Hitler and Mussolini went rogue, they had to distance themselves from this ideology, even though it had the same roots as theirs. They tagged Nazis and Fascists as right wing, even though if you think about it, that is absurd. They still embraced Stalin who was worse than Hitler, and was positioned in the same spot on the political spectrum as the rest of the socialists. World War II was socialists against socialists.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Trimdingman

[fmccap]

Maybe it's time we listen to some other people.

 

The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane

If Congress does not show some sense of financial restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle class to become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more authoritarian – while the liberty of the people is diminished. The illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and warfare states serves the people must come to an end.

And look where we are now.

[Edstock]

Hitler formed the Nazi Party. It stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler was a socialist. Communism also falls under the socialist umbrella. Fascism is also socialist. ONE MORE TIME: Fascism is not socialist, because fascism has private ownership of business and land. Right wing is small government. That's your assumption. Big populations require big government. Left wing, or socialist is big government. Fascism, Naziism, and Communism are big government. I came to these conclusions independently. Then I looked on the internet, and found that these views are widely shared. Roosevelt et al were openly socialist and Communist sympathizers. Please supply proof: facts would be good. Try reading the history of the FBI's efforts against subversives in the 30s and 40s.  When Hitler and Mussolini went rogue, What does going "rogue" mean, exactly? they had to distance themselves from this ideology, even though it had the same roots as theirs. They tagged Nazis and Fascists as right wing, Who "tagged Nazis and Fascists as right wing"? even though if you think about it, that is absurd. They still embraced Stalin who was worse than Hitler, and was positioned in the same spot on the political spectrum as the rest of the socialists. World War II was socialists against socialists. You need more tin foil.

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, do you want to know who said these things? I said them. I have independent opinions. I use my own mind. All you do is ask questions. You never think. Say your piece without referring to other people's opinions. You do not have an opinion. The first victim of war is the truth. The victors get to write the history. To find the truth, you have to weigh everything. You have to put yourself in the position of the historian and fathom his agenda. You have to get a sense of the flavor of the times from many different perspectives. Most importantly, you have to have a great mind and be unindocrinated. Don't be overwhelmed by someone else's supposed intellect and flowery language. It could be a lot of spin to cover up the truth and promote a false agenda. The truth can be stated simply. Be suspicious of overly wordy messages.

 

You are confusing socialist with Communist. In a Communist country the government owns the businesses. In a socialist country, it is a mix of private and public ownership, like Fascist Italy under Mussolini. In a far right country, all business would be privately owned with government having a minimal role, like Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, where many landlords had more power than the King. There is no way that Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy were right wing. This depiction was the result of spin to distance the other socialists, like the USA under Roosevelt and European Allies, from them. They were all partially to blame for the mess that ended up in the destruction of much of the world and countless deaths and an aftermath of lies that is leading to a repeat, possibly even more terrible.

 

We are still all socialists. We point fingers, but we should be looking in the mirror, especially the rear view mirror. We have already gone down this road to ruin before.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Trimdingman

[grbeck]

ONE MORE TIME: Fascism is not socialist, because fascism has private ownership of business and land.

 

And facism is not a right-wing ideology; it's a left-wing ideology. It advocates strong government regulation of property and businesses. Libertarianism is the right-wing ideology when it comes to determining the relationship between the national government and the private sector.

 

People were allowed to own businesses and land in Nazi Germany, provided they agreed to follow the government's overall scheme for organizing the German economy, and used it for the government's ultimate goals (military production, for example).

Edited September 28, 2010 by grbeck

[Edstock]

And facism is not a right-wing ideology; it's a left-wing ideology. It advocates strong government regulation of property and businesses. 

Look, most historians and political scientists define "left-wing" and socialism as being part and parcel with state ownership of industry to various degrees.

 

Fascism uses the organizational methods of the left-wing regimes, but the basic orientation is 180° opposite: industry is owned and controlled by an elite.

 

In Germany, the remnant of Prussian royalty (Little Willi, the Kaiser's son and the Prussian estate owners) and the industrialists of the Ruhr had an embarrassing toleration of the Nazis, especially in the Röhm Brown Shirt era. Minor aristocrats got involved with a perceived opportunity and became Nazi state executives, like, say, von Ribbentrop, a faded aristo who saw the Nazis as a way to stop being a champagne salesman.