Blame game...

Give businesses more incentive to move jobs offshore?

The first thing I would do is make it mandatory to label country of origin for all products, including medicines and food.

Then the people could buy American products with their choice.
WE are to blame for our problems. If we had cut off the companies that moved offshore we would be lots better off.
If we had not used our homes as piggy banks.
If we had not spent for status instead of what we needed.
If we had not gone asshole deep in debt.
If we had had the drive to better educate ourselves.

What? Maybe you would like the government to tell you how to live your life, not me.

Most products that are made overseas are already lables as such.
Perhaps if we didn't over regulate, and have better business incentives they wouldn't move overseas. By the way....you can thank Clinton for that OK?
Perhaps with the rest of your "if we had not's" taxed the hell out of the American people, they would have had more money in their pockets.

I do blame Clowntoon as well as the demoncratic congress. However the right has been the main cheerleaders in this, and still continue to be.

The fact is that if we refused to buy imported goods they would be manufactured here for us to buy. A business that does not sell things will not long be a business.
 
Once again, I ask any right-winger how you would create immediate jobs. There is never, ever an answer. Obama can't just wave a magic wand, and neither can you.

Immediate jobs would be created with some very friendly taxing legislation to small businesses. Since historically 70% of all new jobs come from that sector,... that is the place to concentrate effort. Certain tax reductions aimed to make new business ventures there less risky and problematic would cause people who are holding back to go ahead and make a move.

One time tax credits will not do that. You cannot buy a job with $7k. It can be said that a large proportion of new small businesses fail within a year, but they stiill create new jobs which don't entirely disappear. Much of the time the employees of these failed businesses see another way forward because they have taken note of the reasons for the failure; and the business education they get is invaluable.

The healthcare debacle has actually deterred those small business jobs.

I repeat: Further tax reductions at this time simply means increasing the deficit.

Precisely wrong. How can anyone not see that more jobs and doing more business that can be taxed means more tax revenues, IMMEDIATELY? The taxes that are foregone are future taxes, payable in future years.

USC I see your thanks down below Maggies post. I thought you thought for your self and outside the box....hmmmm
 
So, for the third time in this thread alone, what exactly do you want him to do? Reduce taxes even further which is also a deficit producer?
I do believe I have answered that in another thread. Reducing taxes doesn't mean a higher deficit, in fact in increases revenue with more liquidity with the employees, and with business. This has been proven on more than one occasion with our government

Yes, that worked so well during the Bush Administration (oops, I said Bush...sorry). If small businesses were so propped up then by Bush's tax cuts, then how come they were so quick to fall when the recession began? The tax rate was about 38% when Clinton was president, and I didn't see businesses crashing one after another; nor did I see massive layoffs because businesses and individuals were taxed at a higher rate (plus employees knew where they stood with employer paid health care).

Yeah that dot.com boom really worked out good for Clinton, didn't it. Maggie, I made a lot of money under the Bush administration and his policies. For 6 years things went quite well, until the real estate market went bust. There were a number of reasons for that, and Bush was only part of that problem.
You put more money into peoples pockets, your going to see people spending that money, which creates revenue for the government in many different ways. You put more money into businesses bank accounts and you will see less failures and more employees. No one can deny that, not even you....but I think you will try.
 
Immediate jobs would be created with some very friendly taxing legislation to small businesses. Since historically 70% of all new jobs come from that sector,... that is the place to concentrate effort. Certain tax reductions aimed to make new business ventures there less risky and problematic would cause people who are holding back to go ahead and make a move.

One time tax credits will not do that. You cannot buy a job with $7k. It can be said that a large proportion of new small businesses fail within a year, but they stiill create new jobs which don't entirely disappear. Much of the time the employees of these failed businesses see another way forward because they have taken note of the reasons for the failure; and the business education they get is invaluable.

The healthcare debacle has actually deterred those small business jobs.

I repeat: Further tax reductions at this time simply means increasing the deficit.

Precisely wrong. How can anyone not see that more jobs and doing more business that can be taxed means more tax revenues, IMMEDIATELY? The taxes that are foregone are future taxes, payable in future years.

USC I see your thanks down below Maggies post. I thought you thought for your self and outside the box....hmmmm

I do, and that does not preclude the possibility that I will agree with something Maggie posts.


there is a myriad of overlapping boxes btw.
 
Of course he will blame the previous administration. That said, he should. He inherited an economy in shambles, and troops on two fronts. Sure he has tried to make changes to correct these issues (yes, imo these changes failed). But he should remind people that he started off in a hole.

I just wish he would correct the direction we are headed before it's too late. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the means to do it.

-TSO

In order to correct the situation, he needs support from the Republican Party, which they are not going to give him on a single solitary thing. That was clear from the outset, and it has been the spoken mantra for over a year now. Republicans (or whatever they prefer to call themselves now that they've all decided George W. Bush was just a figment of someone's imagination) that their goal is the bring down this administration, no matter how it might hurt the nation as a whole.

That was driven home quite clearly yesterday by the defeat of the Deficit Reduction Panel, a bill sponsored by Senators Conrad (D) and Gregg (R) and widely seen as a good starting point at one time but when it came up for vote, was defeated by many of those same Republicans whose idea it was in the first place.

MaggieMae's comments sounds so familar to me. Isn't this the way the Democrats treated Bush? They were even openly rude and brazen about it and threw those spears at every opportunity. With the shoe on the other foot now, the Democrats seem to be able to dish it out but not take it. I think this is so funny...
 
Here is a contest for us all to enjoy. How long will Obama speak in the State of the Union speach tonight before he blames the prior administration for things that are not going well for him now? I predict less than 15 minutes. How about you? What's your guess?

Since the right is always talking about this point, Im going to guess he wont say a word.
 
Of course he will blame the previous administration. That said, he should. He inherited an economy in shambles, and troops on two fronts. Sure he has tried to make changes to correct these issues (yes, imo these changes failed). But he should remind people that he started off in a hole.

I just wish he would correct the direction we are headed before it's too late. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the means to do it.

-TSO

In order to correct the situation, he needs support from the Republican Party, which they are not going to give him on a single solitary thing. That was clear from the outset, and it has been the spoken mantra for over a year now. Republicans (or whatever they prefer to call themselves now that they've all decided George W. Bush was just a figment of someone's imagination) that their goal is the bring down this administration, no matter how it might hurt the nation as a whole.

That was driven home quite clearly yesterday by the defeat of the Deficit Reduction Panel, a bill sponsored by Senators Conrad (D) and Gregg (R) and widely seen as a good starting point at one time but when it came up for vote, was defeated by many of those same Republicans whose idea it was in the first place.

MaggieMae's comments sounds so familar to me. Isn't this the way the Democrats treated Bush? They were even openly rude and brazen about it and threw those spears at every opportunity. With the shoe on the other foot now, the Democrats seem to be able to dish it out but not take it. I think this is so funny...
Not so funny and not so apt, as it turns out. Bush had us in two wars which, by all accounts, he was losing. Badly. Remember all that 'surge' business? Remember when it occurred? November 2006. Right after the Republicans lost the House and Senate. That's when Rumsfeld was fired. It was all politics all the time.

And remember the Conservative response to criticism of the wars during the Bush years? Why, it was down-right Un-American to criticize the CnC during wartime!

And did any Democrat shout "You Lie!" at Bush during any of his addresses to Congress? Rude? Brazen? You tell me!

The Conservatives have done little other than attempt to de-legitimize this president. Birth certificates, shouting at him during addresses to Congress, offering nothing as an alternative to health care reform, mocking him as he met other world leaders.

What is the standard the Conservatives want to hold for public comportment today? I see shameful behavior and pride in it.
 
Imagine you had inherited this [see link] one year ago - and the party that caused it doesn't do anything but say NO - so I hope he says it in such a way the American public understands the creators of the mess are the useless republicans and their idiotic chorus.

Took FDR many years to fix the last period of republican destruction, took Clinton several years as well. See link for more of poor governing inherited from the republican and their voodoo economic policies.


"How much poorer are we going to get before we start getting richer again? Here are some (scary, morbid, gruesome) clues.

Expected shortfall of gross domestic product below normal growth path in 2009: $900 billion

Decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from its decade high to its value at the close of business, Jan. 7, 2009: 5,394.83, or 38.1 percent

Number of manufacturing jobs lost since 2000: 3.78 million

Increase in number of unemployed workers from 2001 to 2008: 4 million, a jump of 2.7 percent in the unemployment rate

Real median household income according to the 2000 census, adjusted for inflation: $51,804

Real median household income as of August 2007: $50,233


Of course, the government didn't sit idly by while our financial future was disappearing down the drain. Instead, the feds have pumped in hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, hoping to juice lending and public spending.

Cost of finance industry bailout: $350 billion, with another $350 pending congressional approval

Cost of auto industry bailout: $17.4 billion, so far

And even though there's widespread agreement among economists that the government needs to be spending a large sum of money on an economic stimulus package, it still won't look pretty on the public balance sheet.

National debt: $10.6 trillion

Amount of that debt owned by China: At least $800 billion."



Global Warming - Salon.com
 
Give businesses more incentive to move jobs offshore?

The first thing I would do is make it mandatory to label country of origin for all products, including medicines and food.

Then the people could buy American products with their choice.
WE are to blame for our problems. If we had cut off the companies that moved offshore we would be lots better off.
If we had not used our homes as piggy banks.
If we had not spent for status instead of what we needed.
If we had not gone asshole deep in debt.
If we had had the drive to better educate ourselves.

What? Maybe you would like the government to tell you how to live your life, not me.

Most products that are made overseas are already lables as such.
Perhaps if we didn't over regulate, and have better business incentives they wouldn't move overseas. By the way....you can thank Clinton for that OK?
Perhaps with the rest of your "if we had not's" taxed the hell out of the American people, they would have had more money in their pockets.

I do blame Clowntoon as well as the demoncratic congress. However the right has been the main cheerleaders in this, and still continue to be.

The fact is that if we refused to buy imported goods they would be manufactured here for us to buy. A business that does not sell things will not long be a business.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, our trade policies will be scrutinized and appropriate adjustments made. In the meantime, the manufacturing sectors that have met their demise in this country in favor of cheaper imports won't be reset and rebooted, so new industries need to take their place.

I was reading an article recently on the life, death and rebirth of Pittsburgh, the once bustling hub of the rustbelt which helped build America. It is now rebuilding in green. Nearly one-third of the region's technology jobs are now in green industries, and Pittsburgh's research universities provide the creative juice for new green businesses. Once a polluted city, with choking smoke shrouding mill towns along the river, Pittsburgh has been reborn.
 
I do believe I have answered that in another thread. Reducing taxes doesn't mean a higher deficit, in fact in increases revenue with more liquidity with the employees, and with business. This has been proven on more than one occasion with our government

Yes, that worked so well during the Bush Administration (oops, I said Bush...sorry). If small businesses were so propped up then by Bush's tax cuts, then how come they were so quick to fall when the recession began? The tax rate was about 38% when Clinton was president, and I didn't see businesses crashing one after another; nor did I see massive layoffs because businesses and individuals were taxed at a higher rate (plus employees knew where they stood with employer paid health care).

Yeah that dot.com boom really worked out good for Clinton, didn't it. Maggie, I made a lot of money under the Bush administration and his policies. For 6 years things went quite well, until the real estate market went bust. There were a number of reasons for that, and Bush was only part of that problem.
You put more money into peoples pockets, your going to see people spending that money, which creates revenue for the government in many different ways. You put more money into businesses bank accounts and you will see less failures and more employees. No one can deny that, not even you....but I think you will try.

Maybe Bruce Bartlett will explain it better. Reaganomics has NOT worked as a long-term solution. (Note that Bartlett helped write the legislation for Reagan.)

Bruce Bartlett on supply-side economics and Reaganomics - Oct. 19, 2009

Supply-siders argued that we needed big tax cuts to give people incentives to work harder and get growth going. Tight money, tax cuts, and deregulation -- that was the model. Once Reagan did all that, cutting the top tax rate as low as 28% in 1986, there was nothing left to do. But armies don't disband at the end of wars. They find new ways to fight.

So are Republicans fighting the last war?

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap. Money isn't circulating. The stimulus package may have been over-sold by Obama, but the principle was correct. We need government spending to get out of the trap.
 
Of course he will blame the previous administration. That said, he should. He inherited an economy in shambles, and troops on two fronts. Sure he has tried to make changes to correct these issues (yes, imo these changes failed). But he should remind people that he started off in a hole.

I just wish he would correct the direction we are headed before it's too late. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the means to do it.

-TSO

In order to correct the situation, he needs support from the Republican Party, which they are not going to give him on a single solitary thing. That was clear from the outset, and it has been the spoken mantra for over a year now. Republicans (or whatever they prefer to call themselves now that they've all decided George W. Bush was just a figment of someone's imagination) that their goal is the bring down this administration, no matter how it might hurt the nation as a whole.

That was driven home quite clearly yesterday by the defeat of the Deficit Reduction Panel, a bill sponsored by Senators Conrad (D) and Gregg (R) and widely seen as a good starting point at one time but when it came up for vote, was defeated by many of those same Republicans whose idea it was in the first place.

MaggieMae's comments sounds so familar to me. Isn't this the way the Democrats treated Bush? They were even openly rude and brazen about it and threw those spears at every opportunity. With the shoe on the other foot now, the Democrats seem to be able to dish it out but not take it. I think this is so funny...

Except that for all the screaming and yelling in opposition, Bush got every single thing he wanted. And he did that because every time it looked as though opposition to some bill might come on strong, Bush would threaten a veto and then the dems would just shrug and go home empty handed.
 
In order to correct the situation, he needs support from the Republican Party, which they are not going to give him on a single solitary thing. That was clear from the outset, and it has been the spoken mantra for over a year now. Republicans (or whatever they prefer to call themselves now that they've all decided George W. Bush was just a figment of someone's imagination) that their goal is the bring down this administration, no matter how it might hurt the nation as a whole.

That was driven home quite clearly yesterday by the defeat of the Deficit Reduction Panel, a bill sponsored by Senators Conrad (D) and Gregg (R) and widely seen as a good starting point at one time but when it came up for vote, was defeated by many of those same Republicans whose idea it was in the first place.

MaggieMae's comments sounds so familar to me. Isn't this the way the Democrats treated Bush? They were even openly rude and brazen about it and threw those spears at every opportunity. With the shoe on the other foot now, the Democrats seem to be able to dish it out but not take it. I think this is so funny...
Not so funny and not so apt, as it turns out. Bush had us in two wars which, by all accounts, he was losing. Badly. Remember all that 'surge' business? Remember when it occurred? November 2006. Right after the Republicans lost the House and Senate. That's when Rumsfeld was fired. It was all politics all the time.

And remember the Conservative response to criticism of the wars during the Bush years? Why, it was down-right Un-American to criticize the CnC during wartime!

And did any Democrat shout "You Lie!" at Bush during any of his addresses to Congress? Rude? Brazen? You tell me!

The Conservatives have done little other than attempt to de-legitimize this president. Birth certificates, shouting at him during addresses to Congress, offering nothing as an alternative to health care reform, mocking him as he met other world leaders.

What is the standard the Conservatives want to hold for public comportment today? I see shameful behavior and pride in it.

Right on (pun intended).
 
I was wondering how long it would take midcan to link to another one of his winger sites....

Ah yes, we're not supposed to say the "B" word, we're not supposed to quote from non-conservative websites. We're all supposed to conform to the right wing ideology, here and everywhere, all while the cons can spew any garbage that floats the Internet and expect it to stick as gospel truth.

What a boring message board this would be if everybody thought exactly the same with everyone high-fiving each other and the choir humming Kumbaya in the background.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that worked so well during the Bush Administration (oops, I said Bush...sorry). If small businesses were so propped up then by Bush's tax cuts, then how come they were so quick to fall when the recession began? The tax rate was about 38% when Clinton was president, and I didn't see businesses crashing one after another; nor did I see massive layoffs because businesses and individuals were taxed at a higher rate (plus employees knew where they stood with employer paid health care).

Yeah that dot.com boom really worked out good for Clinton, didn't it. Maggie, I made a lot of money under the Bush administration and his policies. For 6 years things went quite well, until the real estate market went bust. There were a number of reasons for that, and Bush was only part of that problem.
You put more money into peoples pockets, your going to see people spending that money, which creates revenue for the government in many different ways. You put more money into businesses bank accounts and you will see less failures and more employees. No one can deny that, not even you....but I think you will try.

Maybe Bruce Bartlett will explain it better. Reaganomics has NOT worked as a long-term solution. (Note that Bartlett helped write the legislation for Reagan.)

Bruce Bartlett on supply-side economics and Reaganomics - Oct. 19, 2009

Supply-siders argued that we needed big tax cuts to give people incentives to work harder and get growth going. Tight money, tax cuts, and deregulation -- that was the model. Once Reagan did all that, cutting the top tax rate as low as 28% in 1986, there was nothing left to do. But armies don't disband at the end of wars. They find new ways to fight.

So are Republicans fighting the last war?

What good are tax cuts when people have no income to tax? In this crisis we've run into the same problem we had in the Great Depression: a liquidity trap. Money isn't circulating. The stimulus package may have been over-sold by Obama, but the principle was correct. We need government spending to get out of the trap.

Perhaps Michael LaFaive will offer a little insight for you about the reality of tax cuts.

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.


Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue [Mackinac Center]
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top