Ending Bush Tax Cuts & Cutting Spending is BAD?!

[Katzndogz]

If we just cut the entertainment budget from the govrernment departments we'd be ahead. Cut all non essential programs. Department of education, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, funding for Planned Parenthood, needle exchanges for drug addicts, Foreign aid to enemy countries, Head Start, WIC, No Child Left Behind. End contributions to the United Nations, WHO, and end all funding for dealing with climate change.

It is not that we don't have enough money. We have plenty of money. We are just spending it unwisely. There is a time for luxury, this is not that time. If the government were a family going over the budget there wouldn't be money to fix a leaky roof because everythng was spent on dinner out and party clothes.

 

[kyzr]

meh nothing we cant get past...But it would take actual intelligence, not whats been suggested in this thread.

Do tell....you don't like Simpson-Bowles? Whay has been suggested is to make entitlements self-sustaining and to balance the Budget. The discussion is HOW to do it. Platitudes aren't working.

well raising taxes would help, but at the sametime you need to cut spending. That to me would be the fastest way to balance things out.

And you cut from everything. Military, DOE, EPA etc. Everything has some bloat in it and can be cut.

But this cant happen because people have their sacred cows. Next you would need to rein in wall street with sensible regulations, You need to streamline the tax codes and close loop holes.

But one has to also understand this is a global economy and that has to be taken into account.

Its a massive complex issue, and overly simple solutions like cutting off whole agencies is stupid.

Granted this is my simple take...but reasonable.

Exactly. No sacred cows, and Wall Street gets regulated to benefit the US, not to support the global casino. Now that you have spoken the truth just watch how some of the greedy fucks whine about how they can't implement the solution. Well Said.

 

[Londoner]

Where do you think we've been shipping jobs since Reagan? The label on a shirt I just bought said "Made in Grenada". And somehow you believe that the massive Reagan and Bush tax cuts have turned into American jobs? The tax cuts are used to buy government in order to construct the regulatory and legal environment to ship jobs to sweatshop labor markets in the 3rd world. The rightwing voter has been lied to.

Many businesses - once you factor in the subsidies and loopholes - pay zero taxes. They get free services for shipping jobs overseas. GE has an effective tax rate of zero, but they pour money into FOX news in order to convince morons that they live under Stalin. I cannot believe that business investments in rightwing media have resulted in the wholesale fooling of a generation of voters.

The point of Reaganomics was to give capital the ability to shed American labor. By lowering labor costs, they drove American wages to 3rd world levels. Then they tried to fix weakened demand by expanding credit markets (through credit cards and sub-primes and "no-money-down" gimmicks) - and it fucking blew up in 2008.

They sent capital/investment/jobs to China and the 3rd world, and then they gave the American middle class Master Cards, American Express, and Visa. Morning in America was a fucking hoax made possible by the suicidal expansion of credit to a middle class whose jobs had been sent to sweatshops so that one narrow group of Americans could realize dynastic wealth.

 

[kyzr]

Opinion without any logical proof.
You are clumsily trying to avoid the elephantile question in the room, which is, why should Mitt Romney and the super-rich pay a lower tax rate then the middle-class? For example, Mitt pays 15% on capital gains. That's riding in the wagon instead of helping to pull it.
Not controlling others, just making them pay their "fair share" for the "liberty" they enjoy. Who makes up the military? Mostly mid/lower incomes. The wealthy would rather move off-shore or stash their cash in Swiss Bank accounts.

Your bullshit whinings for "liberty" are avoiding the real issue, which is that the wealthy have gained at the expense of the rest of us, and that is about to change. Lets see how many votes the big money boyz can buy this year with their Super-PACs.

You really think that's the issue--that some people pay a lower tax rate, or make more money, or something?
No one has gained at your expense. You are making more money now than you did 10 years ago. It is simply envy that you look at what others make.
It is like Obama maintaining he would raise rates on dividends, despite the fact that lower rates actually produces more revenue, because of "fairness." How is it fair to deprive the Treasury of money so he can punish some people? That isn't fairness. That is vengeance.

Its not envy when some rich folks buy loop-holes in the tax system that benefit themselves is it? All's fair in capitalism, right? Getting tax breaks to move factories overseas is also fair as well, just lowering labor costs. You are only looking at one side of the coin. If the 99% want the 1% to pay a bit more in taxes, and to build more factories in the US (leaving Boeing in NC and the NLRB issues aside) both sides are simply lobbying for their wallets, or in our case a bigger bucket of rice.

 

[SniperFire]

Where do you think we've been shipping jobs since Reagan?

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

 

[SniperFire]

If the 99% want the 1% to pay a bit more in taxes, and to build more factories in the US (leaving Boeing in NC and the NLRB issues aside) both sides are simply lobbying for their wallets, or in our case a bigger bucket of rice.

That is exactly how the communists view it.

 

[kyzr]

Where do you think we've been shipping jobs since Reagan?

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Is that the 1% version of "Let them eat cake?"

 

[SniperFire]

Where do you think we've been shipping jobs since Reagan?

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Is that the 1% version of "Let them eat cake?"

Not at all. It is simple fact that the CONSUMER decides where the jobs go.

Why is it that you Leftists are the least likely demographic to buy a domestic label automobile, but the LOUDEST moaners about the simple fact you are the ones who have 'shipped' those good union jobs out of America thanks to your purchase habits?

Hypocrite, much?

 

[The T]

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Is that the 1% version of "Let them eat cake?"

Not at all. It is simple fact that the CONSUMER decides where the jobs go.

Why is it that you Leftists are the least likely demographic to buy a domestic label automobile, but the LOUDEST moaners about the simple fact you are the ones who have 'shipped' those good union jobs out of America thanks to your purchase habits?

Hypocrite, much?

The left loves to manipulate the CONSUMER by punishing them...yes...that simple.

 

[SniperFire]

In the name of solvency, our businesses outsource jobs overseas.

Go to your local Walmart and look at all of those Owebama supporters stuffing their carts with Bangladesh and Chinese merchandise.

Drive by your local schools and see all of the cars driven by those Unionized teachers which are either imported or owned by a foreign concern.

The consumer decides, and the consumer ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS opts for faster, better and cheaper.

It is the way it works. Always has been, always will be.

I just wish asshole Liberals would stop whining about 'shipping' jobs overseas when they are as responsible for the 'shipping' as anybody else.

 

[Clementine]

I hear that the US economy is heading over a cliff at the end of 2012. All due to the end of the Bush Tax Cuts and other fiscal stimuli, like extended unemployment benefits. All in all, about a 5% hit on US GDP.

US Economic Outlook 2013 Heading Off ‘Fiscal Cliff’ – International Business Times
US Economic Outlook 2013 Heading Off 'Fiscal Cliff?

Is this true or simply bullshit? I seem to recall in 1993 when Clinton first imposed the new tax rates (35% to 39%, or so) that the GOP went nuts and said the economy would collapse, and all sorts of bad things would happen. What happened was prosperity and a balanced Budget.

The US Debt was downgraded from AAA to AA+, and if we don't get our fiscal house in order, we are headed for disaster. The private sector needs to kick-start the US economy, but all they have been doing is moving 14,000 factories to China and outsourcing jobs. We don't have the same reserve economic capacity we used to have.
News Headlines

So who is right? Do you want to "kick-the-can" down the road and keep borrowing more and more taking a downgrade? If that happens the dollar may not be the "reserve currency" and our borrowing costs explode.

OR, do you vote for "austerity" and getting the Budget and Debt under control, "temporary pain, permanent gain"?

I think government spending is a bigger factor than tax cuts. The government is giving away $4 billion in fraudulent tax refunds to illegal aliens, for instance. And they increased entitlements because they think poor people shouldn't want for anything, including cell phones and such. Then there are the billions wasted on those green energy companies that went bankrupt. I still suspect that was a money laundering operation. If any company, green or otherwise, has a great idea, they'll succeed without the tax payers footing the bill for starting their company.

Then we have the failed stimulus. And on and on. The government wastes billions each year and it's money we should never have spent in the first place. No matter how high they raise taxes, they will still spend more than they take in. They've already robbed social security. Nothing is safe in their hands. They are spendaholics in charge of our piggy banks.

 

[The T]

In the name of solvency, our businesses outsource jobs overseas.

Go to your local Walmart and look at all of those Owebama supporters stuffing their carts with Bangladesh and Chinese merchandise.

Drive by your local schools and see all of the cars driven by those Unionized teachers which are either imported or owned by a foreign concern.

The consumer decides, and the consumer ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS opts for faster, better and cheaper.

It is the way it works. Always has been, always will be.

I just wish asshole Liberals would stop whining about 'shipping' jobs overseas when they are as responsible for the 'shipping' as anybody else.

And sadly? Too many of these goods used to come from here...but don't...any guesses WHY they don't?

Our Government has become so punitive...and in conjunction with UNIONS have sewn it shut.

 

[The T]

I'd make UNIONS illegal...or at least have no larger standing than any average CITIZEN.

 

[JakeStarkey]

End the Bush tax cuts.

Cut defense, reform entitlements, and pass a minimal revenue hike on the lower and working classes.

Problem solved.

 

[The T]

End the Bush tax cuts.

Cut defense, reform entitlements, and pass a minimal revenue hike on the lower and working classes.

Problem solved.

END the TAX CODE...Abolish the 16th Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

End the Bush tax cuts.

Cut defense, reform entitlements, and pass a minimal revenue hike on the lower and working classes.

Problem solved.

Nothing’s going to happen until next year at the earliest, and when that ‘happens,’ it will be pretty much nothing.

The gridlock will continue, as republicans refuse the raise taxes (needed to balance the budget) and democrats refuse to cut entitlements (needed to balance the budget).

And it makes no difference who the president is or the composition of Congress: even if republicans take control of the Senate, they won’t have a ‘filibuster-proof’ majority allowing Senate democrats to block legislation, just as Senate republicans have for the last three years.

You may have indeed solved the problem, but your solution will never be implemented.

END the TAX CODE...Abolish the 16th Amendment.

This will never come about because it’s irresponsible idiocy.

 

[Londoner]

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to say something far less ambitious.

I think a portion of the people (on both sides of the aisle) who tell us that tax cuts = American jobs have been busy doing the exact opposite - i.e., creating the legal/regulatory framework for moving jobs to foreign sweatshops. I was merely trying to offer a counter-argument to a truism about the relationship of tax cuts to jobs. The postwar years and the Clinton boom suggest that the relationship might be more complex.

But, I beg of you. Consider....

The postwar model was one of shared prosperity - American capital and American labor both benefited hugely from an albeit tenuous compact. The compact amounted to this: a higher portion of the money coming in was disbursed to middle class labor in the form of higher wages and benefits. This lead to a virtuous cycle of wage based consumption, e.g., the American worker had more money to spend, so the capitalist was forced to innovate and add jobs to capture that demand. This grew the economy and everybody benefited.

But a group of extremely powerful interests were attracted by the 3rd world model where much higher levels of prosperity accrued to capital ("business", "investors"), while labor received only subsistence wages (not consumption wages) and was (in most 3rd world countries) toothless, malnourished, living in mud huts, paid pennies a day. So this group of powerful interests funded Ronald Reagan, who helped them create a global system where all the world's capital could leverage (buy) governments and shift jobs to the 3rd world and/or oppressed parts of communist Asia like China (which is ironic if you consider that the Cold War was against Communism or state controlled economies. One of our largest businesses - Walmart - gets 100% of its manufacturing from a state controlled economy - China. But everyone knew that the official Cold War narrative was designed for moronic homelanders who listen to talk radio. You get it right? By constructing an enemy, the president can claim to be protecting you while he undermines your job on behalf of capital, which funded his election. Indeed, the point of the Reagan ascendancy was to help capital get around American labor costs, i.e., cut the middle class out of the gains of economic growth > and the Cold War was a context for moving jobs to the types of nations and economies Washington claimed to oppose. It's funny how the people who trust government the least - the Tea Party types - are the one's who bought Government's Cold War narrative hook-line-and-sinker. But we all know that those people are Government's biggest suckers).

The funny part is this. They said "give us tax cuts and we'll give you American jobs". But they did this at the exact same time that they were laying the foundations to move jobs to the 3rd world. (That's really my main point. I don't think anyone has a birthright to anything. I was just commenting on a truism RE tax policy and jobs, and how the people using that truism were/are full of shit).

Anyway, after they moved the jobs to dictator-run nations (the ones they were "protecting" us from), they tried to sustain domestic consumption through the expansion of credit. (Again) look at household debt starting in the 80s. This is why we all started receiving 3 credit cards a week. Washington wanted to maintain the very consumption levels that had sustained the economy for 45 years. They had to make up for the falling wages and benefits somehow. They did this partly so our transition to a 3rd world model (i.e., a small group of wealthy owners surrounded by a massive group of impoverished and superfluous workers) was gradual and less socially disruptive.

But it was high comedy because as we started giving capital the mobility to shed American jobs, each president promised the middle class more prosperity than the last generation. Each president - Reagan more than any other - acted like the growth of middle class prosperity was a birthright. But ...(and this is the hilarious part) both parties spewed this bullshit while undermining American labor on behalf of special interests. Is it any wonder that the global economy is in trouble? The world's greatest consumer - the credit-card-wielding American - is too indebted to buy a pot to piss in.

Alas, the great credit bubble started under Reagan (necessitated by the export of American jobs) has finally burst. Indeed, we leveraged the last piece of value we had left - our homes. There is nothing left to draw credit from. We are now ready for a quick transition to the 3rd world model where the wealthy realize all the gains of economic growth and the poor are distracted with demons - terrorists, gays, liberals, marxists, illegals, etc. Just like my dear British Empire, we will become a nation of toothless workers living in Dickensian slums.

(I may be a liberal, but I'm not a dumb liberal. I moved money into oil and gold funds to stock up for the end of the American moment of history.)

 

[The Rabbi]

You really think that's the issue--that some people pay a lower tax rate, or make more money, or something?
No one has gained at your expense. You are making more money now than you did 10 years ago. It is simply envy that you look at what others make.
It is like Obama maintaining he would raise rates on dividends, despite the fact that lower rates actually produces more revenue, because of "fairness." How is it fair to deprive the Treasury of money so he can punish some people? That isn't fairness. That is vengeance.

Its not envy when some rich folks buy loop-holes in the tax system that benefit themselves is it? All's fair in capitalism, right? Getting tax breaks to move factories overseas is also fair as well, just lowering labor costs. You are only looking at one side of the coin. If the 99% want the 1% to pay a bit more in taxes, and to build more factories in the US (leaving Boeing in NC and the NLRB issues aside) both sides are simply lobbying for their wallets, or in our case a bigger bucket of rice.

]

Could you name a couple of "loopholes rich folks have bought themselves"?
Could you show where anyone is giving tax breaks to move factories overseas?
Why do you want people to be forced into boring repetitive factory work? How about letting the market decide this?
It is envy. You haven't even shown why any of what you write is a problem. It's just "ma! he got a bigger piece than me!"

 

[The Rabbi]

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to say something far less ambitious.

I think a portion of the people (on both sides of the aisle) who tell us that tax cuts = American jobs have been busy doing the exact opposite - i.e., creating the legal/regulatory framework for moving jobs to foreign sweatshops. I was merely trying to offer a counter-argument to a truism about the relationship of tax cuts to jobs. The postwar years and the Clinton boom suggest that the relationship might be more complex.

But, I beg of you. Consider....

The postwar model was one of shared prosperity - American capital and American labor both benefited hugely from an albeit tenuous compact. The compact amounted to this: a higher portion of the money coming in was disbursed to middle class labor in the form of higher wages and benefits. This lead to a virtuous cycle of wage based consumption, e.g., the American worker had more money to spend, so the capitalist was forced to innovate and add jobs to capture that demand. This grew the economy and everybody benefited.

But a group of extremely powerful interests were attracted by the 3rd world model where much higher levels of prosperity accrued to capital ("business", "investors"), while labor received only subsistence wages (not consumption wages) and was (in most 3rd world countries) toothless, malnourished, living in mud huts, paid pennies a day. So this group of powerful interests funded Ronald Reagan, who helped them create a global system where all the world's capital could leverage (buy) governments and shift jobs to the 3rd world and/or oppressed parts of communist Asia like China (which is ironic if you consider that the Cold War was against Communism or state controlled economies. One of our largest businesses - Walmart - gets 100% of its manufacturing from a state controlled economy - China. But everyone knew that the official Cold War narrative was designed for moronic homelanders who listen to talk radio. You get it right? By constructing an enemy, the president can claim to be protecting you while he undermines your job on behalf of capital, which funded his election. Indeed, the point of the Reagan ascendancy was to help capital get around American labor costs, i.e., cut the middle class out of the gains of economic growth > and the Cold War was a context for moving jobs to the types of nations and economies Washington claimed to oppose. It's funny how the people trust government the least - the Tea Party types - are the one's who bought Government's Cold War narrative hook-line-and-sinker. But we all know that those people are Government's biggest suckers).

The funny part is this. They said "give us tax cuts and we'll give you American jobs". But they did this at the exact same time that they were laying the foundations to move jobs to the 3rd world. (That's really my main point. I don't think anyone has a birthright to anything. I was just commenting on a truism RE tax policy and jobs, and how the people using that truism were/are full of shit).

Anyway, after they moved the jobs to dictator-run nations (the ones they were "protecting" us from), they tried to sustain domestic consumption through the expansion of credit. (Again) look at household debt starting in the 80s. This is why we all started receiving 3 credit cards a week. Washington wanted to maintain the very consumption levels that had sustained the economy for 45 years. They had to make up for the falling wages and benefits somehow. They did this partly so our transition to a 3rd world model (i.e., a small group of wealthy owners surrounded by a massive group of impoverished and superfluous workers) was gradual and less socially disruptive.

But it was high comedy because as we started giving capital the mobility to shed American jobs, each president promised the middle class more prosperity than the last generation. Each president - Reagan more than any other - acted like the growth of middle class prosperity was a birthright. But ...(and this is the hilarious part) both parties spewed this bullshit while undermining American labor on behalf of special interests. Is it any wonder that the global economy is in trouble? The world's greatest consumer - the credit-card-wielding American - is too indebted to buy a pot to piss in.

Alas, the great credit bubble started under Reagan (necessitated by the export of American jobs) has finally burst. Indeed, we leveraged the last piece of value we had left - our homes. There is nothing left to draw credit from. We are now ready for a quick transition to the 3rd world model where the wealthy realize all the gains of economic growth and the poor are distracted with demons - terrorists, gays, liberals, marxists, illegals, etc.

I may be a liberal, but I'm not a dumb liberal. I moved money into oil and gold funds to stock up for the end of the American moment of history.

Can you ever write a post that isn't three pages long?

 

[SniperFire]

You say that as if Americans have some sort of birthright to a job, regardless of how eager Liberals are to buy import automobiles and such.

Sorry for the confusion.

I was trying to say something far less ambitious.

Forgive me for not reading your bullshit treatise.

Americans have no birthright to any particular job. Hell, humans don't even have such birthright, as technology moves and obsoletes jobs constantly.

Worse, the same Leftist assholes who whine constantly about evul greedy corporations 'shipping' a job overseas are usually the same Leftist assholes anxious to buy the union-busting slave labor products.


Buy American Cars? Not in San Francisco


On April 29, the last domestic car dealership within city limits, San Francisco Ford Lincoln, closed its showroom doors and began winding down its repair and service operations,

Foreign automakers, including BMW, Honda, Scion and Smart, all continue to run what appear to be thriving dealerships in the area, as San Franciscans increasingly pledge their allegiance to import brands. Even the site of the last General Motors dealership to shut down in the city -- Ellis Brooks Chevrolet – is soon to be the home of a new mega-showroom for Nissan/Infiniti.


Buy American Cars? Not in San Francisco | Fox News