? For liberals: If taxes go up on rich, how will you feel about consequences?

[Bob Roberts]

The Bush tax cuts. If they expire, massive tax hikes on rich people and rich companies will ensue.

Liberals: If you are at work in January, for a wealthy company or wealthy boss, and you the Bush cuts to expire as Obama wants, how will you feel if you get called into the office and told:


"Since Washington let the tax cuts expire, we can't afford the staff your division as is. 40% of you will be laid off. It will be a randomly selected group. You'll know within 2 weeks."

If you lose your job due to Obama allowing the companies and rich people to get their taxes hiked, how will you feel? Or, what if you come to work after watching MSNBC applaud Obama no longer allowing tax breaks for the rich, and find out your best friend at work got laid off, because it turns out the Bush tax cuts allowed enough capital for that company to expand your division 6 years ago and hire both of you, but now they cant afford you both and one has to go?????

Never forget, as much as you lefties hate the rich and hate corporations, they provide the jobs in this country. If you want a good paying, stable job, most likely it's gonna be working for a rich person or company. Thats reality, and I'm thankful for the rich who have employed me and don't want their taxes to go up, because the more money they send to Washington DC, the less money they send to their employees.

Linked below is an interesting article in the Washington Post, describing 5 myths about the Bush tax cuts. The article addresses many points made on this thread, and is pertinent to the OPs claim regarding the importance of keeping taxes low on "rich" people. I think this link is worth reading.

"According to the Congressional Budget Office and other authorities, extending all of the Bush tax cuts would have a small bang for the buck, the equivalent of a 10- to 40-cent increase in GDP for every dollar spent.

Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts."

washingtonpost.com

An interesting point. Why does the CBO ignore the benefit of the money that isn't spent but is invested? Also, since the CBO is quoted as an authority on economic projections can you please provide some information on any time the CBO's projections were correct?

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

 

[asterism]

There is no such thing as 'marxian governance'

Marxian economics are economic theories on the functioning of capitalism based on the works of Karl Marx. Adherents of Marxian economics, particularly in academia, distinguish it from Marxism as a political ideology and sociological theory, arguing that Marx's approach to understanding the economy is intellectually independent of his advocacy of revolutionary socialism or his belief in the proletarian revolution.[1][2] Adherents consider Marx's economic theories to be the basis of a viable analytic framework, and an alternative to more conventional neoclassical economics. Marxian economics do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists; they draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.

Marxian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Marxian is one school upon which I draw, though I draw from it mostly my understanding of the socioeconomic class system. By economic policies are broadly based on the Austrian school, though I am leery of those who call for unabashed capitalism without those regulations designed to protect the People.

We've seen where that leads us.

We've also seen where totalitarian socialism leads us and what happens when Progressives are let off the leash and allowed to enact their visions unrestrained and unchecked by reality.

Read The Science of Liberty. The solution is to learn from past experiments and stick with what works, letting results, not blind ideology, guide us.

In your opinion, what works?

Efficiency and freedom within a mutually agreeable framework is what works in my opinion. That means we should separate the regulators from the entity which is being regulated. Government should not call the shots, write the rules, enforce the rules, and participate in the market.

I have read The Science of Liberty. History is already quite littered with the attempts to apply the Scientific Method to economics and social dynamics. Human interaction is by nature not Scientific, and the "unbiased" Scientists rejecting their own human flaws is how we got the current aristocracy among Scientists in the first place.

Perhaps I'll read it again to see if I get another impression. The final chapter about Global Climate Change really pissed me off. Not one statistician in the bunch, but all of them are either writing their own computer programs to apply statistical methods or having some graduate student do it.

 

[asterism]

Linked below is an interesting article in the Washington Post, describing 5 myths about the Bush tax cuts. The article addresses many points made on this thread, and is pertinent to the OPs claim regarding the importance of keeping taxes low on "rich" people. I think this link is worth reading.

"According to the Congressional Budget Office and other authorities, extending all of the Bush tax cuts would have a small bang for the buck, the equivalent of a 10- to 40-cent increase in GDP for every dollar spent.

Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts."

washingtonpost.com

An interesting point. Why does the CBO ignore the benefit of the money that isn't spent but is invested? Also, since the CBO is quoted as an authority on economic projections can you please provide some information on any time the CBO's projections were correct?

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

According to whom?

Again, can you cite an example of the CBO being correct in any of their projections?

 

[boedicca]

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

People can't spend much money when they don't have jobs, which do require investment.

 

[asterism]

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

People can't spend much money when they don't have jobs, which do require investment.

That investment is done by people who aren't spending all their available money on consumer items.

The argument has been framed wrong by design, and I blame John Maynard Keynes for that one. He articulated a very good mechanism for government to assist in the stabilization of economic swings. He sold me on the concept of a social safety net and temporary but valid ability for governments to borrow money. But his principles were short on some key details, like what happens when the social safety net becomes a hammock (hat tip to boog) and when government borrowing spirals into a catastrophic situation. He ignored the tipping point of having people more interested in having someone else pay for their needs instead of providing for themselves.

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

 

[boedicca]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

The simple answer: cuz he "won".

A bit longer answer: cuz it's all about power. Progressives want to consolidate Big Government Power so that those who run the government (which produces nothing) can lead lives of secure employment, with higher pay and benefits than the poor proletarian slobs who toil in the private sector. They view the private sector as serfs.

They're really quite reactionary - all the way back to prehistory.

 

[asterism]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

The simple answer: cuz he "won".

A big longer answer: cuz it's all about power. Progressives want to consolidate Big Government Power so that those who run the government (which produces nothing) can lead lives of secure employment, with higher pay and benefits than the poor proletarian slobs who toil in the private sector. They view the private sector as serfs.

They're really quite reactionary - all the way back to prehistory.

So why is nobody on the left calling for President Obama to lead by example? Why does he get to be rich but others can't?

 

[Greenbeard]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

What does this mean? Are you suggesting he doesn't pay taxes? Or just suggesting that he shouldn't receive compensation for the job?

 

[Modbert]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

So the President shouldn't be paid? Or are you assuming he doesn't pay taxes?

 

[daveman]

I'm sure the use of a Marxist term to describe a group of people is merely a coincidence.

Da, Comrade.

Funny how they used to pretend that they were not promoting class welfare, marxism, socialism, and nationalization of industry huh?

Remember all those IndyMedia folks who said this wasn't the agenda and that folks like you and I were paranoid?

Now they're not even making a token attempt to hide it. Class warfare is an official policy of the White House.

Well, class warfare against wealthy conservatives. They get rich exploiting the workers. Wealthy liberals get rich by helping people.

I think I remember one comment in particular:

"The UAW would NEVER own stock in a car company. Their role is to represent the workers and provide a balance to the owners' interests."

And they still believe that shit, too!

That brings to mind another LA IMC comment from 2004:

"A young man named Barack Obama spoke at the convention. This guy is the real deal. He'll end both wars in the first week if we're smart enough to elect him."

SUCKERS!!

 

[daveman]

Well, I think people have had enough. For decades we've been called every name in the book when we disagreed. Now.. here we are. The folks McCarthy warned us about are in power and are implementing their master plan... 3 pillars.... Energy, Health Care & Education.

Notice how they've got us all carved up into neat "classes" too. It's a dehumanizing tactic. Don't talk about the entrepreneur who took $100K out of his SEP-IRA to make payroll, talk about the "upper class" or the "rich."

Don't listen to the people that know how to make money, exploit the jealousy and call them greedy.

President Obama made $400,000 last year that he didn't need. Why didn't he just give it all back to the government? Why has Paul Krugman not led by example and contributed directly to paying off the national debt?

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

In fact, why hasn't anyone here who advocates higher mandatory taxes done the same?

I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week.

 

[asterism]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

What does this mean? Are you suggesting he doesn't pay taxes? Or just suggesting that he shouldn't receive compensation for the job?

Neither.

If he needs more money for the government he's already got more than I do. Why doesn't he just lead by example?

 

[asterism]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

So the President shouldn't be paid? Or are you assuming he doesn't pay taxes?

Anyone with the power to reach into my pocket should start with theirs.

 

[Greenbeard]

If he needs more money for the government he's already got more than I do. Why doesn't he just lead by example?

Again, what does this mean?

 

[asterism]

If he needs more money for the government he's already got more than I do. Why doesn't he just lead by example?

Again, what does this mean?

He should pay up first.

 

[jillian]

The truly sad part about it is the abject corruption that our current system has. Our President made $400,000 last year that he doesn't need. Why does he get to keep it but I've got to reach into my pocket?

So the President shouldn't be paid? Or are you assuming he doesn't pay taxes?

Anyone with the power to reach into my pocket should start with theirs.

again, are you asserting that the president doesn't pay taxes? last i checked, he's a W-2 employee and subject to withholding.

just sayin'

 

[Bob Roberts]

An interesting point. Why does the CBO ignore the benefit of the money that isn't spent but is invested? Also, since the CBO is quoted as an authority on economic projections can you please provide some information on any time the CBO's projections were correct?

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

According to whom?

Again, can you cite an example of the CBO being correct in any of their projections?

According to me. Since consumer spending represents over two-thirds of the economy, I think it is more important than protecting the top 1%'s wealth.

I posted an interesting article from the Washington Post that referenced CBO predictions. Why do I need to defend the CBO record?

 

[rightwinger]

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

According to whom?

Again, can you cite an example of the CBO being correct in any of their projections?

According to me. Since consumer spending represents over two-thirds of the economy, I think it is more important than protecting the top 1%'s wealth.

I posted an interesting article from the Washington Post that referenced CBO predictions. Why do I need to defend the CBO record?

Henry Ford realized it early in the Industrial Revolution...he needed to pay his workers a reasonable wage so that they would be able to afford his cars. Ford drove the prevailing wage up and ended up selling alot of cars

 

[daveman]

If he needs more money for the government he's already got more than I do. Why doesn't he just lead by example?

Again, what does this mean?

He should pay up first.

They simply can't understand the concept.

 

[asterism]

Consumer spending is more important than investment growth from the top 1% for improving today's economy.

According to whom?

Again, can you cite an example of the CBO being correct in any of their projections?

According to me. Since consumer spending represents over two-thirds of the economy, I think it is more important than protecting the top 1%'s wealth.

Ok. It's not fiscally viable, but you are free to have your opinion.

I posted an interesting article from the Washington Post that referenced CBO predictions. Why do I need to defend the CBO record?

Because they have never been right and you are trying to use their predictions as a justification.