Bush tax cuts

[TitanSooner]

been researching the ramifications of these expiring and ran into an interesting take.. I'm still not sure what to make of all this yet, but thought I'd share... Facts about the Bush tax cuts (http://www.libradex.com/viewArticle.aspx?id=4)

[ArlJim78]

its class warfare peddled by snake oil salesmen who claim to be "looking out for the little guy" by making the rich pay. and shame on those evil republicans for giving tax break to their wealthy friends at the expense of the hard working little man who plays by the rules and yet can barely get by. Sound familiar? It should because this scam is run every year in and year out. There are legions of people ready and eager to sop up this nonsense because of envy. They never bother to take the time to notice that the money raised by taxing the wealthy is a relative pittance, or that their lot in life sinks ever further down the drain because these same snake oil salesman are selling out the country and bleeding the treasury dry trying to achieve their vision of a social utopia.

[mostpost]

its class warfare peddled by snake oil salesmen who claim to be "looking out for the little guy" by making the rich pay. and shame on those evil republicans for giving tax break to their wealthy friends at the expense of the hard working little man who plays by the rules and yet can barely get by. Sound familiar? It should because this scam is run every year in and year out. There are legions of people ready and eager to sop up this nonsense because of envy. They never bother to take the time to notice that the money raised by taxing the wealthy is a relative pittance, or that their lot in life sinks ever further down the drain because these same snake oil salesman are selling out the country and bleeding the treasury dry trying to achieve their vision of a social utopia.
It's not envy. It's common sense and knowledge of the facts.
Here are just a few ways in which the distribution of wealth has changed in the last few decades.
Between 1976 and 1998 the share of the national wealth held by the top 1% increased from 22% to 38%.

During that same period the wealth (if it can be called that) of the bottom 40% of the population decreased 76.3%. The wealth of the top 1% increased 42.6%.

If the financial wealth of the average family in the bottom 80% of families were represented by a bar graph one inch high, the bar representing the financial wealth of the average family in the top 1% would be 33 feet high.

In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals inthe Forbes 400 owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

Between 1947 and 1973 median family income doubled in real terms--it grew by 100%. But from 1973 t0 2001 it grew by only 25%.

Finally, from 1973 to 2001, productivity increased 60%, yet wages increased less than 10%.

You guys (I was going to write clowns, but didn't. :rolleyes:) complain about redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not. For the last several decades we have had redistribution of wealth from those who don't have to those who had plenty to begin with.

[boxcar]

It's not envy. It's common sense and knowledge of the facts.
Here are just a few ways in which the distribution of wealth has changed in the last few decades.
Between 1976 and 1998 the share of the national wealth held by the top 1% increased from 22% to 38%.

During that same period the wealth (if it can be called that) of the bottom 40% of the population decreased 76.3%. The wealth of the top 1% increased 42.6%.

If the financial wealth of the average family in the bottom 80% of families were represented by a bar graph one inch high, the bar representing the financial wealth of the average family in the top 1% would be 33 feet high.

In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals inthe Forbes 400 owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

Between 1947 and 1973 median family income doubled in real terms--it grew by 100%. But from 1973 t0 2001 it grew by only 25%.

Finally, from 1973 to 2001, productivity increased 60%, yet wages increased less than 10%.

You guys (I was going to write clowns, but didn't. :rolleyes:) complain about redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not. For the last several decades we have had redistribution of wealth from those who don't have to those who had plenty to begin with.

Mosty, I have a question for you: If the Bush tax cuts were targeted for only the "rich" how come when they expire the bottom rate rises from 10% to 15%?

Thanks,
Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Finally, from 1973 to 2001, productivity increased 60%, yet wages increased less than 10%.
...

I'm certainly not an economist... but what the hell does this demonstrate other than more jobs were mechanized or otherwise accomplished more efficiently due to technology?

I mean, the way that is phrased I am to believe that the workforce as individuals all literally worked 60% harder each and every day and yet were scammed by only getting 10% more pay for that 60% more output.

Maybe the 10% wage increase is the important point to take away, but naive as I am to economics, I get muddled up before the point by that 60% corrolation.

[Mike at A+]

It's not envy. It's common sense and knowledge of the facts.
Here are just a few ways in which the distribution of wealth has changed in the last few decades.
Between 1976 and 1998 the share of the national wealth held by the top 1% increased from 22% to 38%.

During that same period the wealth (if it can be called that) of the bottom 40% of the population decreased 76.3%. The wealth of the top 1% increased 42.6%.

If the financial wealth of the average family in the bottom 80% of families were represented by a bar graph one inch high, the bar representing the financial wealth of the average family in the top 1% would be 33 feet high.

In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals inthe Forbes 400 owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

Between 1947 and 1973 median family income doubled in real terms--it grew by 100%. But from 1973 t0 2001 it grew by only 25%.

Finally, from 1973 to 2001, productivity increased 60%, yet wages increased less than 10%.

You guys (I was going to write clowns, but didn't. :rolleyes:) complain about redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not. For the last several decades we have had redistribution of wealth from those who don't have to those who had plenty to begin with.
All you've proven is that the rich get richer because that's what they do best. They're smarter than those lower in the food chain. They work harder (and smarter) and have a better understanding of how to prosper within the parameters set by government. I have sympathy for those who aren't smart enough to achieve wealth but none for those who lack the motivation. This is America and if you try real hard you can make it. If you have screw ups for parents and follow in their footsteps, you have two strikes against you. You can post all the graphs and all the statistics you like but it all boils down to the fact that work has its rewards and lack of skills limits the work you can do.

[mostpost]

All you've proven is that the rich get richer because that's what they do best. They're smarter than those lower in the food chain. They work harder (and smarter) and have a better understanding of how to prosper within the parameters set by government. I have sympathy for those who aren't smart enough to achieve wealth but none for those who lack the motivation. This is America and if you try real hard you can make it. If you have screw ups for parents and follow in their footsteps, you have two strikes against you. You can post all the graphs and all the statistics you like but it all boils down to the fact that work has its rewards and lack of skills limits the work you can do.
Smarter? In some cases. Work harder? You have to define hard work. Is it hard work to sit in an office or to work construction? Opportunity has a lot to do with it. And a focus on making money at the expense of others. Many people are content to have a job and do a good job at that job. They are not interested in being a mogul and controling thousands of people. That doesn't mean they are dumber or less ambitious, just that they are not obsessed.
For you to say that those graphs are meaningless requires that we believe everyone who is not successful is lazy and/or stupid. I do not believe that.

[mostpost]

I'm certainly not an economist... but what the hell does this demonstrate other than more jobs were mechanized or otherwise accomplished more efficiently due to technology?

I mean, the way that is phrased I am to believe that the workforce as individuals all literally worked 60% harder each and every day and yet were scammed by only getting 10% more pay for that 60% more output.

Maybe the 10% wage increase is the important point to take away, but naive as I am to economics, I get muddled up before the point by that 60% corrolation.
Maybe not so much harder as more efficiently. No doubt a lot of that efficiency can be traced to automation, but it can also be traced to workers who work more efficiently.
So we come back to the fundamental disagreement between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives feel that because the owner installed a more efficient machine or system, he is entitled to all additional profit. Liberals recognize that without the workers, those machines are worthless. Therefore, those workers are entitled to a share of those profits.

[boxcar]

Smarter? In some cases. Work harder? You have to define hard work. Is it hard work to sit in an office or to work construction? Opportunity has a lot to do with it. And a focus on making money at the expense of others. Many people are content to have a job and do a good job at that job. They are not interested in being a mogul and controling thousands of people. That doesn't mean they are dumber or less ambitious, just that they are not obsessed.

You just contradicted yourself. People who are content with limited responsibility are not nearly as ambitious as people who place no such restrictions on themselves.

Also, using one's mind at a desk can indeed be more stressful and cause greater fatigue than physical work.

For you to say that those graphs are meaningless requires that we believe everyone who is not successful is lazy and/or stupid. I do not believe that.

All the graphs prove is that there are disparities in talents, skills, aptitudes, ambition, training, productivity, native intelligence, etc., etc. Life is chock-full-of disparities. When we come into this world, we are all equal in one way and one way only. After that, forget about equality.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

... Work harder? You have to define hard work. Is it hard work to sit in an office or to work construction? ...
You don't just get to "sit in an office". There's something called an education that requires a ton of work before you make a cent in that office. It all hinges on what's important to you. If you set goals and put in the sweat necessary to achieve them, the rewards come later. If instant gratification is your thing and staying focused in school isn't, well I don't have to explain the rest.

[Tom]

I am all for redistributing the work!

[mostpost]

You just contradicted yourself. People who are content with limited responsibility are not nearly as ambitious as people who place no such restrictions on themselves.

Also, using one's mind at a desk can indeed be more stressful and cause greater fatigue than physical work.




All the graphs prove is that there are disparities in talents, skills, aptitudes, ambition, training, productivity, native intelligence, etc., etc. Life is chock-full-of disparities. When we come into this world, we are all equal in one way and one way only. After that, forget about equality.

Boxcar
Disparities do not account for an executive making four hundred times what a worker in his company makes. Were the executives who pushed GM to the brink of Bankruptcy worth 400 times a GM worker? Were the executives who destroyed Bear Stearns worth 400 times a secretary who worked for that company? Those people got their salaries because they voted them to themselves, not because of any real contributions.

If a worker makes a mistake and costs a company enough money they will be fired. If an executive costs a company enough money they will be fired.....with a golden parachute. :bang: :bang:

[JustRalph]

Disparities do not account for an executive making four hundred times what a worker in his company makes. Were the executives who pushed GM to the brink of Bankruptcy worth 400 times a GM worker? Were the executives who destroyed Bear Stearns worth 400 times a secretary who worked for that company? Those people got their salaries because they voted them to themselves, not because of any real contributions.

If a worker makes a mistake and costs a company enough money they will be fired. If an executive costs a company enough money they will be fired.....with a golden parachute. :bang: :bang:

SOS from the Quasi Socialist viewpoint

[boxcar]

Disparities do not account for an executive making four hundred times what a worker in his company makes. Were the executives who pushed GM to the brink of Bankruptcy worth 400 times a GM worker? Were the executives who destroyed Bear Stearns worth 400 times a secretary who worked for that company? Those people got their salaries because they voted them to themselves, not because of any real contributions.

If a worker makes a mistake and costs a company enough money they will be fired. If an executive costs a company enough money they will be fired.....with a golden parachute. :bang: :bang:

Yeah...well, those disparities get pretty wide when you start comparing CEO's to janitors or dishwasher or hamburger flippers. I'd venture to say that in these lowly ranks, there are many whose work doesn't justify their hourly wage either. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I think we could call these kinds of disparities performance-to-compensation.

And, yes, rank always has had it privileges. This is nothing new in the real world either.

Btw, if you don't like what CEOs are making, don't buy any goods or services from those companies. It's called boycotting.

Boxcar

[wisconsin]

Disparities do not account for an executive making four hundred times what a worker in his company makes. Were the executives who pushed GM to the brink of Bankruptcy worth 400 times a GM worker? Were the executives who destroyed Bear Stearns worth 400 times a secretary who worked for that company? Those people got their salaries because they voted them to themselves, not because of any real contributions.

If a worker makes a mistake and costs a company enough money they will be fired. If an executive costs a company enough money they will be fired.....with a golden parachute. :bang: :bang:

Of course you fail to see that the CEO has 400 times the responsibility that the lowly worker has.

WalMart example:

Associate $8 hour or $16,512 per year
Store Manager looking over 200 employees $75,000 per year
CEO over seeing thousands of stores and a million emplyees

What should he be making, Mosty? Don't side step this one, either.

[boxcar]

Of course you fail to see that the CEO has 400 times the responsibility that the lowly worker has.

WalMart example:

Associate $8 hour or $16,512 per year
Store Manager looking over 200 employees $75,000 per year
CEO over seeing thousands of stores and a million emplyees

What should he be making, Mosty? Don't side step this one, either.

That "R" word is only selectively in a lib's vocab. They use it a lot, for example, when they try to make their case for the "poor's" entitlements from the rich. But they never use to discuss the poor's responsibility to work and contribute to a society.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I don't think too many lefties understand the word responsibility.

[wisconsin]

I'll bet I don't get an answer here. C'mon Mosty, in U.S. Dollars please. Your valid opinion.

[Mike at A+]

Well, I just heard that Obama has finally come to the realization that the rest of America came to months ago. The extension of the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE (including those evil rich people and small businesses) is what's needed to finally start creating private sector jobs. After months of kicking and screaming, the class warfare, the demonization of entrepreneurship and reckless spending on all the wrong things, Obama's handlers (and the election results) have finally pounded some sense into that thick skull.

Now I'm no "economist" but I'd bet that we are about to see some private sector job creation and some continued strength in the financial markets.

Why did he wait so long? The answer is very simple. The name "Bush" was attached to these tax cuts and Obama's support to extend them would be an admission that George W. Bush did something good. Obama is a narcissist as we all know and practically incapable of saying anything good about anyone outside of his party.

As for those who stick to their claims that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and jobs were still lost, they conveniently ignore the effects of 9/11, the cost of the resulting wars supported by BOTH PARTIES and a Democrat controlled Congress starting in 2006. They simply point us to the raw data.

But now I have a new answer for these people and it concerns Obama's favorite statistic - SAVED JOBS. Just think of how much worse it would have been without the Bush tax cuts and how many more of those SAVED JOBS would have been lost. Had Bush played the "saved jobs card", could you imagine the criticism in the media?

One other bet I'd be willing to make is that if this works and 2011 sees stimulated private sector job growth, Obama will not give any credit to George W. Bush. NONE! But those of us living in the real world know better.

[GameTheory]

Well, I just heard that Obama has finally come to the realization that the rest of America came to months ago. The extension of the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE (including those evil rich people and small businesses) is what's needed to finally start creating private sector jobs. After months of kicking and screaming, the class warfare, the demonization of entrepreneurship and reckless spending on all the wrong things, Obama's handlers (and the election results) have finally pounded some sense into that thick skull.

Now I'm no "economist" but I'd bet that we are about to see some private sector job creation and some continued strength in the financial markets.

Why did he wait so long? The answer is very simple. The name "Bush" was attached to these tax cuts and Obama's support to extend them would be an admission that George W. Bush did something good. Obama is a narcissist as we all know and practically incapable of saying anything good about anyone outside of his party.

As for those who stick to their claims that the Bush tax cuts didn't work and jobs were still lost, they conveniently ignore the effects of 9/11, the cost of the resulting wars supported by BOTH PARTIES and a Democrat controlled Congress starting in 2006. They simply point us to the raw data.

But now I have a new answer for these people and it concerns Obama's favorite statistic - SAVED JOBS. Just think of how much worse it would have been without the Bush tax cuts and how many more of those SAVED JOBS would have been lost. Had Bush played the "saved jobs card", could you imagine the criticism in the media?

One other bet I'd be willing to make is that if this works and 2011 sees stimulated private sector job growth, Obama will not give any credit to George W. Bush. NONE! But those of us living in the real world know better.He's moving the line of scrimmage to whether the higher-end tax rates will still have a built-in expiration date -- he'll be fighting for that now instead. (They won't expire now, but by god they'll expire sometime!)

[boxcar]

IF...IF...BO agrees to extend the Bush tax cuts, you can better believe there will be strings attached. He will get something in return -- one way or the other. Tax cuts to this Marxist is what holy water is to a vampire.

Also, we can never rule out with this narcissistic sociopath the real possibility that he will rule these next years by circumventing congress as much as he can through exercising his executive orders privilege. I suspect he will push the envelope with this privilege. For example, do not be surprised if the EPA writes or at least attempts to write its own Cap and Trade legislation, etc. Do not underestimate this radical. He's a minion from hell on a mission with very powerful globalists behind him.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

IF...IF...BO agrees to extend the Bush tax cuts, you can better believe there will be strings attached. He will get something in return -- one way or the other. Tax cuts to this Marxist is what holy water is to a vampire.

Also, we can never rule out with this narcissistic sociopath the real possibility that he will rule these next years by circumventing congress as much as he can through exercising his executive orders privilege. I suspect he will push the envelope with this privilege. For example, do not be surprised if the EPA writes or at least attempts to write its own Cap and Trade legislation, etc. Do not underestimate this radical. He's a minion from hell on a mission with very powerful globalists behind him.

Boxcar
Republicans should stick to their guns and vote down anything less than an 8-10 year extension for EVERYONE. If Obama disagrees, then we should let the cuts expire for everyone. The working middle class doesn't need the extension as badly as the unemployed do and that's how Republicans need to explain this. And if Obama tries to ram through laws bypassing normal procedure, his party will be damaged for a very long time and those remaining will turn against him, hopefully to the point of impeachment. He's a danger to everyone except the most radical in America. I see real bloodshed in the streets of America if "goes dictator" on us.

[boxcar]

Republicans should stick to their guns and vote down anything less than an 8-10 year extension for EVERYONE. If Obama disagrees, then we should let the cuts expire for everyone. The working middle class doesn't need the extension as badly as the unemployed do and that's how Republicans need to explain this. And if Obama tries to ram through laws bypassing normal procedure, his party will be damaged for a very long time and those remaining will turn against him, hopefully to the point of impeachment. He's a danger to everyone except the most radical in America. I see real bloodshed in the streets of America if "goes dictator" on us.

His party had already been badly damaged by the underhanded, sneaky, devious ways they passed ObaminationCare. Do you think he cares? Does Pelosi care? Does Reid care? They knew there would be a big fallout when they passed that unread legislation -- yet, the Party sacrificed themselves for a "cause greater than themselves". They knew that once it was signed into law, it would be virtually impossible to reverse it -- to repeal it. You underestimate these die-hard globalists, Marxists, socialists -- whatever you want to call them. They are committed and relentless.

I believe the next major nail they want to drive into Freedom's coffin is Cap and Trade. And I think there has already been a court ruling to the effect that the EPA could write [restrictive] regulations under the Clean Air Act, providing they can prove their case. In fact, BO totally misrepresented that court ruling recently. So, the EPA, while not getting the green light (bad pun intended) from the SC, nevertheless managed to get a yellow one. I'd much prefer red.

However, as perverse as this may sound, there is a part of me that continues to want to see BO, Reid, Pelosi and Company overextend themselves -- overreach. (I stated this desire two years ago on this forum!) There is a part of me that wants to see the liberals (on both sides of the aisle) continue to expose themselves to Americans for the radicals they are. This would guarantee another landslide victory in 2012, the defeat of BO and the election of a Republican president. If this were to happen -- even if the president turned out to be a RINO type, there would be enough real conservatives in both houses to repeal all this socialist garbage, even if the president were to veto it. In short, I wouldn't mind seeing things get worse in this country for the short term in order to make meaningful, long term gains. I'll take short term pain for the sake of long term gains any day.

I look at this as a war between Good and Evil. Between Freedom and Servitude. Between Individualism and Collectivism. Between Nationalism and Globalism. Between Capitalism and Communism (in one form or another). And the Republicans should fight this like a real war and plan their political strategy accordingly.

Below is a link to the president's recent remarks about Cap and Trade and the EPA.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/11/obama-revisits-energy-policy-cap-and-trade-epa-regulation.html

Boxcar

[Valuist]

Maybe not so much harder as more efficiently. No doubt a lot of that efficiency can be traced to automation, but it can also be traced to workers who work more efficiently.
So we come back to the fundamental disagreement between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives feel that because the owner installed a more efficient machine or system, he is entitled to all additional profit. Liberals recognize that without the workers, those machines are worthless. Therefore, those workers are entitled to a share of those profits.

Question for you Mostpost: it seems like many liberals love technology. We see Obama with his Blackberry; seemingly every liberal that I know was waiting in line in 2007 to pay $600 for the (then) brand new iPhone.

But how do liberals feel about technology making more jobs (particularly manual labor type jobs) obsolete? Strange dilemma for the Dems on this, since these type of workers often are Democrat.

[cj's dad]

Be prepared for charts and graphs !!

[Tom]

Therefore, those workers are entitled to a share of those profits.

What about them kicking in to help pay for the new machines?
You know, mosite - the RISK part of investment. Oh wait, as a gov-uninon man, you are only familiar with the leeching side of the equation.

They are, of course, not entitled a penny. Many of them are not worth that amount, either.

[GameTheory]

But how do liberals feel about technology making more jobs (particularly manual labor type jobs) obsolete?That's called increased efficiency and is a good thing. That's why we are all able to live in relative luxury compared to most of the humans that have come before us. Some act like there is only so much work to be done, and we are going to run out of it if we have too many machines doing things. This is the same line of reasoning that gives us stimulus spending. Everyone is taking their eye off the ball -- what is the purpose of work? Just to keep busy? It is to PRODUCE things and PROVIDE services. The lack of jobs has zero to do with "lack of work to be done". There is no such thing.

[bigmack]

I kept hearing "we're just 'giving away' $700billion" and thought "Wow, that's a lot." Turns out that's over a decade.

When government cuts are discussed now some people refer to $70Billion as chump change. When it comes to taxes those same folk refer to that figure and multiply it by 10.

Must be for dramatic effect.

[Valuist]

That's called increased efficiency and is a good thing. That's why we are all able to live in relative luxury compared to most of the humans that have come before us. Some act like there is only so much work to be done, and we are going to run out of it if we have too many machines doing things. This is the same line of reasoning that gives us stimulus spending. Everyone is taking their eye off the ball -- what is the purpose of work? Just to keep busy? It is to PRODUCE things and PROVIDE services. The lack of jobs has zero to do with "lack of work to be done". There is no such thing.

I am NOT criticizing the increased efficiency. I was wondering THEIR view, since it negatively impacts many of their consituents.

[GameTheory]

I am NOT criticizing the increased efficiency. I was wondering THEIR view, since it negatively impacts many of their consituents.I am saying it is not a fair question, since it does not in fact have a net negative impact. Yes, in the short-term particular people will possibly lose their particular jobs if a method is devised to do it with less people, but the net effect does not hurt a particular economic group; in fact, everybody benefits in the long-run.

[skate]

It's not envy. It's common sense and knowledge of the facts.
Here are just a few ways in which the distribution of wealth has changed in the last few decades.
Between 1976 and 1998 the share of the national wealth held by the top 1% increased from 22% to 38%.

During that same period the wealth (if it can be called that) of the bottom 40% of the population decreased 76.3%. The wealth of the top 1% increased 42.6%.

If the financial wealth of the average family in the bottom 80% of families were represented by a bar graph one inch high, the bar representing the financial wealth of the average family in the top 1% would be 33 feet high.

In 1982 the wealthiest 400 individuals inthe Forbes 400 owned $92 billion. By 2000 their wealth increased to over $1.2 trillion.

Between 1947 and 1973 median family income doubled in real terms--it grew by 100%. But from 1973 t0 2001 it grew by only 25%.

Finally, from 1973 to 2001, productivity increased 60%, yet wages increased less than 10%.

You guys (I was going to write clowns, but didn't. :rolleyes:) complain about redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who have not. For the last several decades we have had redistribution of wealth from those who don't have to those who had plenty to begin with.

Are we including Tiger, Oprie and M Moore?

And what does that have to do with the tax rates.?

AND and and , your "knowledge of facts" seem to contradict each other. no?

[Lefty]

70% of jobs are created by small business' If the tax cuts aren't extended, there goes more jobs. These small business owners are considered by Dims to be rich but that's just Dim Bovine Feces.

[Tom]

Between 1947 and 1973 median family income doubled in real terms--it grew by 100%.



duh. We just came out of a world war and a derpression before that (that you dems/progessives).

When youthrow out numbers like that without any frame of reference, you make no piont. Youcuold also truthfull say that the death rate in Europe was reduced by 90% from 1945-1950.

[Mike at A+]

70% of jobs are created by small business' If the tax cuts aren't extended, there goes more jobs. These small business owners are considered by Dims to be rich but that's just Dim Bovine Feces.
I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but I'd love to see if anyone made a killing in the stock market between the time Axelrod said that Obama was going to compromise on the Bush tax cuts and when Obama said from South Korea that he was not willing to budge on that.

[skate]

Disparities do not account for an executive making four hundred times what a worker in his company makes. Were the executives who pushed GM to the brink of Bankruptcy worth 400 times a GM worker? Were the executives who destroyed Bear Stearns worth 400 times a secretary who worked for that company? Those people got their salaries because they voted them to themselves, not because of any real contributions.

If a worker makes a mistake and costs a company enough money they will be fired. If an executive costs a company enough money they will be fired.....with a golden parachute. :bang: :bang:

Whose butt is responsible for the Post Office and can we fire a postalfluffoff?

talk about "to the Brinks"...

[RaceBookJoe]

Whose butt is responsible for the Post Office and can we fire a postalfluffoff?

talk about "to the Brinks"...

The PO only lost $8B this year :rolleyes:

[lamboguy]

why not extend "the bush tax cuts"? they should probably eliminate all the taxes, on second thought they should hand everyone money

[riskman]

The rich actually paid more total taxes, and a higher percentage of all taxes, after the Bush tax rate cuts, because their incomes were rising with the rising economy.

Do the people who keep repeating the catch phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" not know this? Or are they depending on your not knowing it?

[hcap]

Question for you Mostpost: it seems like many liberals love technology. We see Obama with his Blackberry; seemingly every liberal that I know was waiting in line in 2007 to pay $600 for the (then) brand new iPhone.

But how do liberals feel about technology making more jobs (particularly manual labor type jobs) obsolete? Strange dilemma for the Dems on this, since these type of workers often are Democrat.......................................... ........................................

Be prepared for charts and graphs !!

Different problem. What gave us an edge over other countries and created wealth and gave rise to a comfortable middle class is no longer available. The economy has fundamentally and structurely changed to favor the financial sector. It is not simply a matter of the steam hammer replacing John Henry

page 33 of Kevin Phillips'

"Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism",

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/Manufacturing-Financial.JPG

"Phillips explains, this shift came about because both political parties in Washington -- well fed with Wall Street money -- decided America's economic future lay in the financial sector, not in manufacturing. "

[Tom]

Do the people who keep repeating the catch phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" not know this? Or are they depending on your not knowing it?

Of course they know it, The whole strategy of the left has been repeat the lies often enough and people believe them. The ONLY way they can maintain their false allegations about the tax cuts is to continually lie about them and misrepresent them.

How many of the Hollywood trash would be willing to have the cap on SS withholding eliminated and have them pay it on every single dollar they earn, like MOST of us do?

[hcap]

Data source CBO
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

" Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more."

[Lefty]

hcap, so what? It was their money to start with! And despite that, what about the fact that with the tax cuts more money came in to the coffers? A good thing, eh what?

[ArlJim78]

its funny how those tax cuts barely impacted the deficit until Pelosi took over. what a coincisdence that the bottom fell out at that point and then fell even more when chairmen maobama took over.

[delayjf]

For the last several decades we have had redistribution of wealth from those who don't have to those who had plenty to begin with. Show me how Billl Gates making 50 billion dollars took money out of your's or anyone elses pocket.

" Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

So people keeping more of their money and saving it is bad??

Tax cuts do not lead to increased spending, the responsibility for any increase in spending lies at the foot of the Fed Gov. Tax cuts are responsible for increased Gov revenue, you can't blame tax cuts for irresponsible spending.

[hcap]

hcap, so what? It was their money to start with! And despite that, what about the fact that with the tax cuts more money came in to the coffers? A good thing, eh what?If I was making over $250,000 a year, going back to Clinton era levels 3 or 4 percentage points higher , would be acceptable Going back to rates under Eisenhower would not.
So people keeping more of their money and saving it is bad??Much more effective to stimulate the economy by spending than saving. Remember the higher tax payers also get the same cuts as everyone else UP to $250,000.

We are apparently having our same old debate about the progressive tax system. For the moment I am discussing the effect of not extending the upper tax cuts as a practical matter in reducing the debt and stimulating the economy. Not the moral implications

[Lefty]

Hoe does a tax RAISE stimulate the economy? Moreover, how does a tax cut add to the deficit when it's been proven that when taxes are cut, MORE money not less comes into the Treasury?

[hcap]

Hoe does a tax RAISE stimulate the economy? Moreover, how does a tax cut add to the deficit when it's been proven that when taxes are cut, MORE money not less comes into the Treasury?From my previous post....
The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more."Also reducing the deficit alone would begin to reduce the interest we pay on the debt.

[Lefty]

You never answered my questions.
Tax Raises will not reduce the deficit.
Tax cuts and spending cuts, will.

[skate]

Be prepared for charts and graphs !!

:lol: Yep, kind of like those class action law suites, seem to run in "the-neo-lib-family.

they can't own up to the truth with simplicity

[skate]

hcap, so what? It was their money to start with! And despite that, what about the fact that with the tax cuts more money came in to the coffers? A good thing, eh what?


Yeppers, almost $800 BILLION More in taxes collected during uncleGeorges term, than were collected during fishbellieBills terms.

Not to mention, BOs term...yikes:blush:

[skate]

the interest on USA debt took up 15% of our taxes during fishbellies days.


Under uncleGeorge, since we collected so much more tax revenue, it took only 10% of our Taxes to pay the interest on our debt.


just wait for the BOs results...my-my, a little COMMISSERATION for "the Helpless".

BO has no other option, just listen to Sarah, she'll splean everyting.:)

[jognlope]

Not extending cuts is what we can do right now 1/1/11. Gingrich was on Meet the Press today, along with Greenspan, and said he'd rather extend cuts and cut out discretionary spending. Well, the commission's proposals for discretionary spending won't get passed and will probably just be watered down a lot. Greenspan said cuts will be extended because it is politically expedient, but have to cut spending. And people in this country who aren't so hot on their math skills will still demand everything, all entitlements. So the deficit will remain. 3/4 of TARP, depending on where you read it, has been paid back.

[Tom]

Bush = Father of TARP.

[JustRalph]

Bush = Father of TARP.

I don't think he was the father. He was the enabling mother. His Treasuary Sec and few others are the true parents.

He bought off on it though..........

At least he didn't run from it this week. He plainly admits that he took their advice and ran with it.

[Lefty]

Unlike Carter, Clinton and Obama, George W. Bush has class.

[hcap]

Andrew Sullivan .....

"It seems to me that the last year or so in America's political culture has represented the triumph of untruth. And the untruth was propagated by a deliberate, simple and systemic campaign to kill Obama's presidency in its crib. Emergency measures in a near-unprecedented economic collapse - the bank bailout, the auto-bailout, the stimulus - were described by the right as ideological moves of choice, when they were, in fact, pragmatic moves of necessity. The increasingly effective isolation of Iran's regime - and destruction of its legitimacy from within - was portrayed as a function of Obama's weakness, rather than his strength. The health insurance reform -- almost identical to Romney's, to the right of the Clintons in 1993, costed to reduce the deficit, without a public option, and with millions more customers for the insurance and drug companies -- was turned into a socialist government take-over.

Every one of these moves could be criticized in many ways. What cannot be done honestly, in my view, is to create a narrative from all of them to describe Obama as an anti-American hyper-leftist, spending the US into oblivion. But since this seems to be the only shred of thinking left on the right (exacerbated by the justified flight of the educated classes from a party that is now openly contemptuous of learning), it became a familiar refrain -- pummeled into our heads day and night by talk radio and Fox. If you think I'm exaggerating, try the following thought experiment.

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector's in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don't think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.

This is the era of the Big Lie, in other words, and it translates into a lot of little lies -- "death panels," "out-of-control" spending, "apologies for America" etc. -- designed to concoct a false narrative so simple and so familiar it actually succeeded in getting into people's minds in the midst of a brutal recession"

[Mike at A+]

The auto bailouts were a sham. Political payback for union votes. We should have let them fail or better yet slim down by dumping the unions and instead keeping the best workers who actually produce. Not like the guys caught on camera getting high on beer and pot every day on their lunch hour.

If we had elected a Black Republican president, no matter how he performed, he would be referred to as an "Uncle Tom" by the far left just as they did with Colin Powell.

Obama has taken entitlement spending to new levels and the country is in dire straits because of HIS spending. Too many "czars", too many unqualified cronies being appointed to positions of power, too much bloat in government and too much corruption of politicians who are getting very rich off the taxpayers.

WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY - PERIOD!

[Valuist]

Keynesians never get it.

Public spending doesn't drive the economy. The economy drives public spending.

[Mike at A+]

I can't believe these assholes talking about $700 billion OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD! That's a measley $70 billion a year. Do these Democrats know that Obama just pissed away $26 billion on THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS UNION ALONE? That's ONE STATE, ONE PROFESSION, ONE UNION! The failed stimulus of ALMOST $1 TRILLION dwarfs that number. And even with this $700 billion number they're tossing around, do they have a clue about how much of that (if not all - which some people think is very likely) would be recovered from taxes collected from the new jobs that would be created by an extension of these cuts? It amazes me how utterly stupid some people can be to not understand this.

[bigmack]

Andrew Sullivan ..... He's the freak that widely distributed claims that S.Palin faked her 5th pregnancy and did it for political gain. He has a theory that various medical personnel conspired to hide the real mother of the child. He still believes that. And you talk about 'flat earthers' & birthers? :eek:

Obama and Iran. :lol:

[skate]

Keynesians never get it.

Public spending doesn't drive the economy. The economy drives public spending.

Oh boy, welp, thanks for the openinginging, but i'll need a little attention.

If you put money into the economy, it is Not a drive, just a kick.

It has always worked, since first used, to stop Recessions, something like 9 or 10 times since we started to put a kick into the economy, it's worked, no question.
But we can not just put (print) money into the economy, while at the same time, have a tax (Bush's) increase (biggest ever) waiting, along with a hugh Health Care Tax increase also in waiting.

Big business is the reason for an increase or decrease in our economy and they increase by making contracts for future business,
When the future of business is clouded by unknown concerns such as Taxes and Health Care, which would with hold in turn bring back to the gov. any Help that the Newly printed money put into the economy, then we are back to the position of Waiting for the people to Start spending , without any Kick start.

Only one time, i know of, that we did not use Keynesian economics, since he first initiated and that was during FDRs days.
Since we are Not using Keynesian Formulas Now, FDR created as BO is creating Policies that prolonged the Depression.

You can not print and put money into the economy with one Hand and then take back that new money with the other hand, in the form of tax on business.

[NJ Stinks]

From the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day:
_____________________________________________

....At this holiday I think of two friends who are senior military officers. One, an Army general, helps lead our forces in Afghanistan. The other, a Navy captain, served as an adviser there until recently. According to published military pay scales, the general, more senior, earns about $180,000 in base pay; the captain about $120,000. They and their families have borne great burdens over the decades. They are two of the finest people I know; just being around them makes you proud to be an American....

....At this season I can't help but contrast my military friends and their sense of civic virtue with certain well-heeled types now waging a different fight: a battle to keep marginal tax rates on top U.S. earners at 35 percent, instead of letting them rise back to Clinton-era rates of 39.6 percent. They mount their campaign at a time when we have already put the full bill for Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as for President Bush's Medicare drug benefit) on the next generation's credit card and as we cut taxes during a period of war for the first time in our history.

The war debts we're handing off will rise another $150 billion this year alone. The GOP plan is to borrow another $700 billion more over the next 10 years, mostly from less-well-off Americans' children, to give a good number of already wealthy Americans more continued relief each year than many military officers earn in an entire career....

....When I talk to military friends about these debates on the home front, they tend to be puzzled by civilian morality (not to mention Wall Street pay scales). The idea that our troops are laying their lives on the line to protect (among other things) the right to lower taxes during wartime shocks them.

The entire article is at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112403659.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

[GameTheory]

From the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day:
_____________________________________________

....At this holiday I think of two friends who are senior military officers. One, an Army general, helps lead our forces in Afghanistan. The other, a Navy captain, served as an adviser there until recently. According to published military pay scales, the general, more senior, earns about $180,000 in base pay; the captain about $120,000. They and their families have borne great burdens over the decades. They are two of the finest people I know; just being around them makes you proud to be an American....

....At this season I can't help but contrast my military friends and their sense of civic virtue with certain well-heeled types now waging a different fight: a battle to keep marginal tax rates on top U.S. earners at 35 percent, instead of letting them rise back to Clinton-era rates of 39.6 percent. They mount their campaign at a time when we have already put the full bill for Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as for President Bush's Medicare drug benefit) on the next generation's credit card and as we cut taxes during a period of war for the first time in our history.

The war debts we're handing off will rise another $150 billion this year alone. The GOP plan is to borrow another $700 billion more over the next 10 years, mostly from less-well-off Americans' children, to give a good number of already wealthy Americans more continued relief each year than many military officers earn in an entire career....

....When I talk to military friends about these debates on the home front, they tend to be puzzled by civilian morality (not to mention Wall Street pay scales). The idea that our troops are laying their lives on the line to protect (among other things) the right to lower taxes during wartime shocks them.

The entire article is at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112403659.html?nav=hcmoduletmvAlways always these types of arguments are put forward as if it was axiomatic that

higher tax rates = higher tax revenues

even though the evidence shows the opposite (at least at anything around the rates in question). If you want more government revenues, lower tax rates. Why is it so many people can look at incontrovertible and consistent evidence and still insist that black is white? BECAUSE THEY ARE LIARS. If this guy actually cared about military salaries, etc and making sure the government could pay for stuff, he'd be for lower taxes, period. They bring up these fake issues as hooks they think might appeal to other side when it is really about amassing power for themselves.

[Tom]

Why is Obama not working for $1 a year?
And all of congress?
And the editors of the liberal rags?

The only thing a liberal knows is how to steal money from others. That is why liberals have proven time and time against to be worthless leeches and roadblocks to prosperity.

[Lefty]

Tom, and the proof of that is shown in their donations to charity. their contributions are usually picayune compared to their earnings. They'd rather
spend our money rather than their own.