Economic Sabotage

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
enjoy ObamaNation and enjoy explaining to your children and grandchildren you had a hand in this

Obama is burdening a generation in the name of compassion.

SNIP:

Republicans find themselves in the unenviable position of being forced to agree to raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 (the actual cutoff for those Mr. Obama refers to as “millionaires and billionaires”) or risk being blamed for a tax increase on all taxpaying Americans. They will probably agree, which means it’s a politically unavoidable policy, not a good policy.

Why does Obama insist upon raising taxes? Not because he believes it will improve the economy, and not because he believes it will increase receipts to the Treasury. The proposed taxes would bring in about $80 billion a year, a trivial number compared with our $1.3 trillion deficits. Making the books balance is (obviously) not Obama’s goal. In 2008, when it was pointed out to him that President Clinton’s cut in the capital-gains rate increased the revenue from the tax (because lower rates encouraged more transactions), Obama was unmoved. He’d still favor an increase in the capital-gains rate, he explained, for the sake of “fairness.” In another famous and revealing moment, he told Joe the Plumber that he prefers to “spread the wealth around.”

That’s his lodestar. The Washington Post waited until the election was safely behind us to run a story by Zachary Goldfarb examining the president’s governing philosophy. “Beneath his tactical maneuvering lies a consistent and unifying principle: to use the powers of his office to shrink the growing gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.” The president, the article tells us (not that we didn’t surmise this already), is determined to reduce income inequality.

The president has “an acute awareness of recent research,” the Post continues, showing that the changing economy has increased the value of a college education and made it harder for those without a degree to succeed. Obama’s solution? “Despite budget pressures, he made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college.”

Is inequality a problem if prosperity is broadly shared? As John F. Kennedy observed, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Improving the life chances of those at the bottom should be a priority. But the way to do that is to focus on education, family structure, and expanding private-sector employment, not on redistribution of income.

True to Obama’s philosophy, we are pumping cash into the hands of students wishing to attend college. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Nearly all student loans — 93 percent of them last year — are made directly by the government, which asks little or nothing about borrowers’ ability to repay, or about what sort of education they intend to pursue.”

Sound familiar? It’s exactly the sort of backwards thinking that, to coin a phrase, “got us into this mess.” Politicians (most of them, but not all, Democrats) noticed that homeownership was associated with a number of social goods — steady employment, social engagement, high test scores for children — and decided that the homes were causing the other benefits. Make homeownership more broadly available by making mortgages easier to get, ran the logic, and everyone would benefit.

We know how that turned out. But the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from that debacle — fairy tales that they may actually believe about greedy Wall Street and rich Republicans. So now we are busy repeating our folly, inflating what Glenn Harlan Reynolds calls the “higher education bubble.”

all of it here
Economic Sabotage - Mona Charen - National Review Online
 
Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?
 
In another famous and revealing moment, he told Joe the Plumber that he prefers to “spread the wealth around.”

Which is not the same thing as spreading the money around, is it?

The president, the article tells us (not that we didn’t surmise this already), is determined to reduce income inequality.

Why is that a bad thing? Are you OK with a smaller and smaller percentage of American's controlling a larger and larger share of the wealth? Why, or why not?

The president has “an acute awareness of recent research,” the Post continues, showing that the changing economy has increased the value of a college education and made it Obama’s solution? “Despite budget pressures, he made a goal of having every student receive at least one year of college.”

What's your solution: "Tough noogies" to those who can't afford it?


Is inequality a problem if prosperity is broadly shared?

Is it broadly shared? Prove it.

As John F. Kennedy observed, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

Has it lifted all boats? Prove it. Given that real median income and wages have remained static, or even fallen, for the middle and lower classes over the past 30 years or so, that's gonna be a hard position to defend.

Improving the life chances of those at the bottom should be a priority.

Yes, it should.

But the way to do that is to focus on education,

Ok, but how? Government assistance? Price controls? Please explain to me just how you'd accomplish that without involving government action.

family structure

What the hell has that got to do with it and what can government, or anybody else, do about it?

and expanding private-sector employment

Ok, how? Top down or bottom up?

not on redistribution of income.

Please explain to me the difference between forced income redistribution and taxation in general. Are you opposed to taxes, or just the kind of redistribution we saw in the Soviet Union and which is NOT being suggested by anybody here?


True to Obama’s philosophy, we are pumping cash into the hands of students wishing to attend college. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Nearly all student loans — 93 percent of them last year — are made directly by the government, which asks little or nothing about borrowers’ ability to repay, or about what sort of education they intend to pursue.”

As opposed to student loans made through private banks which charged a higher rate of interest and didn't care any more about ability to pay or "sort of education" their clients had?

In any case, do you think deciding FOR students what "sort of education" they're pursuing is a good idea? Who should decide? Banks? Government? The students themselves?


Sound familiar? It’s exactly the sort of backwards thinking that, to coin a phrase, “got us into this mess.” Politicians (most of them, but not all, Democrats) noticed that homeownership was associated with a number of social goods — steady employment, social engagement, high test scores for children — and decided that the homes were causing the other benefits. Make homeownership more broadly available by making mortgages easier to get, ran the logic, and everyone would benefit.

We know how that turned out. But the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from that debacle — fairy tales that they may actually believe about greedy Wall Street and rich Republicans. So now we are busy repeating our folly, inflating what Glenn Harlan Reynolds calls the “higher education bubble.”

What lessons did the Republican's learn from all that? That repeating the Bush years would somehow deliver a different outcome?
 
Last edited:
Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

If tax cuts on the "job creators" actually resulted in more hiring, we should be swimming in jobs by now, shouldn't we?
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?
 
Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?



That's a fair question, and I think it depends on the nature of the entitlement recipient.

If the recipient is under retirement age, is able in mind and body, and is choosing to function as a net tax "taker" rather than as a productive contributing member of society (and "choosing" is another debate), then they are a net drag on the economy and the entitlement system.

And if by promoting an entitlement mindset we are creating more and more of these net tax "takers", then we're placing more and more of a strain on both entitlements and the overall economy. Additionally, we're exacerbating cultural differences by antagonizing those who are choosing to be productive.

So, it seems to me the question is how well we're minimizing the creation of this "taker" underclass. My answer is that, in the pursuit of blanket "fairness", we lower (and even avoid) expectations & standards -- and this is now a generational issue -- and make a bad situation even worse.

.
 
Last edited:
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Because your scenario is flawed on several points.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Those on the receiving end of entitlements spend money they did NOT earn.

You can not go on forever giving privileges to non-producers without collapsing the system.
 
Its gotten so bad, liberals of most stripes can't even recognize common sense when you speak it.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

More and more people settle for taking instead of producing.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Those on the receiving end of entitlements spend money they did NOT earn.

You can not go on forever giving privileges to non-producers without collapsing the system.

Let me revisit my own post in order to clarify things.

First, the definition of the word "entitlement".

Those who spent their entire life working and producing and are now retired and collecting Social Security ARE entitled to receive whatever they receive.

Those able-bodied, young and strong males and females who find any and all excuse NOT to work and produce and contribute are NOT entitled to anything but scorn, derision and cruel denial of them getting a single penny earned by somebody else.

Those who are disabled and can not work are entitled to assistance.

Those who CLAIM to be disabled and are collecting disability payments are entitled to jail for fraud.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Actually I did exactly that, TWICE, got tired of the frist one, was too much hassle, did another till I decided to retire, worked pretty well for me.
 
Here's an idea: Go out and start a business so you have a job if its so easy.

How about increasing those on the receiving end of entitilements eventually will collapse the system every time. Its history and simple logic.

Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?

Because those dollars were sucked away form someone else, you know the folks that acutally earned them, so they would have more than likely been spent anyway. The difference is the government takes theirs off the top so all of it fails to reach the economy. But let's not those pesky little facts get in the way of a good fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Those on the receiving end of entitlements (how do YOU define that?) spend that money, which increases demand, which increases employment, which increases tax revenues from payroll taxes.

How does that collapse the system?



That's a fair question, and I think it depends on the nature of the entitlement recipient.

If the recipient is under retirement age, is able in mind and body, and is choosing to function as a net tax "taker" rather than as a productive contributing member of society (and "choosing" is another debate), then they are a net drag on the economy and the entitlement system.

And if by promoting an entitlement mindset we are creating more and more of these net tax "takers", then we're placing more and more of a strain on both entitlements and the overall economy. Additionally, we're exacerbating cultural differences by antagonizing those who are choosing to be productive.

So, it seems to me the question is how well we're minimizing the creation of this "taker" underclass. My answer is that, in the pursuit of blanket "fairness", we lower (and even avoid) expectations & standards -- and this is now a generational issue -- and make a bad situation even worse.

.

Maobama is advertising for more takers, he has no intent in minimizing the numbers, he's a full fledged member of the Cloward and Pivin society, his intent is to colapse the system.
 
Last edited:
Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

Zeke, are you brain dead or terminally stupid? Does the term Strawman mean anything to you? I realize surviving on a security guard's paycheck is tough but don't envy others their success.
 
Steph, are you saying that if the government would just leave the taxes on the ultra rich alone, they would bring up back to full employment.......when?

How many will they hire and when will they hire them? What do the jobs pay and what fields will they be in?

I mean, after all the time you spend worrying about and defending the ultra rich, surely they have made you privileged to their plans to restore us to full employment with good paying jobs.

Right stef?

Zeke, are you brain dead or terminally stupid? Does the term Strawman mean anything to you? I realize surviving on a security guard's paycheck is tough but don't envy others their success.

What strawman? All I see is you making making assumptions without evidence. It's a valid question to ask, if lower taxes create jobs, where are the jobs? It's not valid to make up a story about some one you don't know and consider it a convincing argument.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top