"If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?"

[JakeStarkey]

Silly One, you are the one filled with rage, while I see clearly.

Watch and learn, little one.

Unsensible One, they can block the GOP from agreeing to any compromise, unless . . . the sensible party cons and mods thrown them overboard, which they have not been ready to do yet.

Whether Obama wins or not, the Senate is going to say Dem, which means the GOP will seek a lame duck agreement to an extension for ALL of the tax cuts.

In order to get it, the GOP cons and mods are going to abandon all of the far right cultural and social and religious TP positions. Watch!

The Tea Party doesn't have a say in it nit wit.

Your rage against the Tea Party has caused you to become unhinged. Stop drinking the left wing Kool Aid and use your brain for once.

 

[Trajan]

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.

Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".

and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?

So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?

 

[PredFan]

If you give more money to the government, they will simply spend more. It's time to force them to live within their means.

You are not real smart about basic economics are you Pred?

The "spending" that you and others like you hate so much, well the vast bulk of that spending is on obligations that have already been made.

Wrong, but irrelevant anyway.

Can you fuking possible grasp what that means?

Yeah I know what it means but now you are going to make shit up, and go on a un-related rant against Bush and the GOP.

It means the interest on the debt is being paid for money we already spent.

Prove that that is the vast majority, hack.

It means Medicare and Medicaid payments are going out to medical providers for services already made.

See? I told you you would just start making shit up.

It means the military is untouchable to rethugs and that spending is both on past obligations and wars and then Mitt wants two trillion of future spending and rethugs won't do anything reducing that debt.

And right on cue is the irrelevant rant about the GOP.

You want to pick in SSI? Sure you do, but SSI is self funding, except for the games Congress played with it.

who said anything about SSI? Not me, here you are making up more shit.

All this debt and obligations was taken on in behalf of some American(s). They are our debts as a nation. Our responsibility.

Prove that it's the vast majority. You can't, you're a hack.

Why you such a moocher you don't want to pay our bills.

What part of basic economics is calling me names? I'm still waiting for this great insight into basic economics you are talking about.

You know how you rethugs like that game of "if you collected all the income above 250k blah blah blah........

You don't like to hear it I know, numbers and facts are too incovenient for you guys.

Same thing with those programs that are on going for future spending. Yea, you could cut every single fuking dollare out of PPH, PBS, EPA, CFC, ABC, DEF, every alphabet soup of programs you could imagine, and you know what?

WE WOULD STILL NEED MORE TAX DOLLARS TO PAY OUR FUKING BILLS.

(Psst, "Fuck" has a "c" in it.)

Wrong again dumbass, but hey, way to make my point that we have a spending problem.

None of that had to do with basic economics. You're pretty good at parroting the left wing bull shit, but not too good at thinking are you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No you're wrong....just because the government borrows money doesnt mean it's a transfer...they COULD cut spending or reform entitlements......why not have working people have their own account? and if you never work in your life...uhoh.........get a fucking job

Is the word 'transfer' that is bothering you people?

The OP was saying - and he can correct me if I'm wrong -

If cutting taxes for the top 2%, and thus letting them keep more of their money creates jobs,

why aren't we swimming in jobs?


I would ask the question this way:

"When did the Bush tax cuts stop being of any use to create jobs (if they ever were) and why did that stop?"

When Obama raised other taxes to make it null and viod.....Tell me how well is that Tax on the poor Obama created in his first year???? You remember the sin tax on tobacco right? Obama learned well form his big bank backers by installing hidden fees.

If you can prove that there are Obama taxes currently in effect that have erased the Bush tax cuts and the tax cuts in the stimulus still in effect and the payroll tax cut,

by all means do so. Otherwise shut up.

btw, the tobacco tax generates about 10 billion a year. So what percent of the Bush tax cuts does that offset?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.

Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".

and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?

So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?

Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.

Why not?

That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.

 

[The Irish Ram]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

Not when you are being taxed out of the other end.
Here's 1 dollar from Bush. Now, give me 5 dollars back. < That is the Obama plan
In January it will be: Give me 6 dollars +

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since TIR's statement by itself is intrinsically unworthy, let's ask for the proof.

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

Not when you are being taxed out of the other end.
Here's 1 dollar from Bush. Now, give me 5 dollars back. < That is the Obama plan
In January it will be: Give me 6 dollars +

 

[The Irish Ram]

ok:
Obama: "Here you poor old folks, here is a cost of living increase in your SS. Enjoy your 20 extra dollars."
(print print print print)

Old folks: "I can't afford peanut butter any more."

Obama: " You don't need peanut butter, we have to send 45 million dollars to the Sunnis."

 

[MikeK]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

Clinton was able to raise taxes because of the Dot Com Boom.

You see any Dot Com Boom on the horizon, Old Rocks? I don't. So you want to raise taxes in the middle of a down economy? Gee, that's a recipe for "instant recession"! How intelligent of you.

[...]

Is it?

The way FDR raised the U.S. out of the Great Depression was by substantially raising taxes on the upper income levels, most of which was hoarded by those who managed to manipulate and exploit the system not unlike the way its been done during the Gilded Age by the banks and Wall Street. The money derived from the tax increases was used to create make-work projects (CCC and WPA) to employ the jobless. Those who earned that money spent it (including my own father) which jump-started and fueled the stagnant economy.

This approach is called demand-side economics. The root of our existing economic problem is the consequence of Ronald Reagan's supply-side approach, which is precisely the Milton Friedman approach that led to the ruin of Chile's economy. It is a system that leads to siphoning-up a nation's wealth, rather than causing the "trickle-down" effect alleged by dimwit Reagan and it has transferred the bulk of America's wealth to just four percent of the population.

To restore balance and get the U.S. Economy back on track the same method must be applied. A massively progressive tax increase must be imposed and the revenue applied to repairing and renovating our Nation's badly deteriorated infrastructure. That approach will create millions of good-paying jobs and create many new industries, all of which will bring our economy back to life by re-circulating the Nation's wealth, most of which is being hoarded by a small number of money manipulators -- such as Mitt Romney and others who refer to manipulating the System as "hard work."

The problem is obvious. It isn't new. The way to repair the problem is equally obvious. It was done before in the 1930s. All that remains to be done is to do it. The real problem is we know Romney won't do it and I don't believe Obama has the balls to do it. He says he will -- but Obama says a lot of things.

Chart showing the tax rates during times of boom and bust: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/toprate_historical.gif

 

[PredFan]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

Clinton was able to raise taxes because of the Dot Com Boom.

You see any Dot Com Boom on the horizon, Old Rocks? I don't. So you want to raise taxes in the middle of a down economy? Gee, that's a recipe for "instant recession"! How intelligent of you.

[...]

Is it?

The way FDR raised the U.S. out of the Great Depression was by substantially raising taxes on the upper income levels, most of which was hoarded by those who managed to manipulate and exploit the system not unlike the way its been done during the Gilded Age by the banks and Wall Street. The money derived from the tax increases was used to create make-work projects (CCC and WPA) to employ the jobless. Those who earned that money spent it (including my own father) which jump-started and fueled the stagnant economy.

This approach is called demand-side economics. The root of our existing economic problem is the consequence of Ronald Reagan's supply-side approach, which is precisely the Milton Friedman approach that led to the ruin of Chile's economy. It is a system that leads to siphoning-up a nation's wealth, rather than causing the "trickle-down" effect alleged by dimwit Reagan and it has transferred the bulk of America's wealth to just four percent of the population.

To restore balance and get the U.S. Economy back on track the same method must be applied. A massively progressive tax increase must be imposed and the revenue applied to repairing and renovating our Nation's badly deteriorated infrastructure. That approach will create millions of good-paying jobs and create many new industries, all of which will bring our economy back to life by re-circulating the Nation's wealth, most of which is being hoarded by a small number of money manipulators -- such as Mitt Romney and others who refer to manipulating the System as "hard work."

The problem is obvious. It isn't new. The way to repair the problem is equally obvious. It was done before in the 1930s. All that remains to be done is to do it. The real problem is we know Romney won't do it and I don't believe Obama has the balls to do it. He says he will -- but Obama says a lot of things.

Chart showing the tax rates during times of boom and bust: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/toprate_historical.gif

Bull shit. What got us out of the Great Depression was WWII

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us where that happened, and how that affected the poor, when all of this controlled by a Congress in which our party's far right are acting like butt holes.

ok:
Obama: "Here you poor old folks, here is a cost of living increase in your SS. Enjoy your 20 extra dollars."
(print print print print)

Old folks: "I can't afford peanut butter any more."

Obama: " You don't need peanut butter, we have to send 45 million dollars to the Sunnis."

 

[PredFan]

Show us where that happened, and how that affected the poor, when all of this controlled by a Congress in which our party's far right are acting like butt holes.

ok:
Obama: "Here you poor old folks, here is a cost of living increase in your SS. Enjoy your 20 extra dollars."
(print print print print)

Old folks: "I can't afford peanut butter any more."

Obama: " You don't need peanut butter, we have to send 45 million dollars to the Sunnis."

Educate yourself, "Congress" is the House and the Senate. The Senate is ruled by the Democrat Party. The Far Right doesn't control enough of Congress to affect anything.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Increase in SS = 3.6 percent
Increase in peanut butter = 40 percent

NEW YORK (AP) Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you are saying the Dems did not want an increase for the poor elderly on SS.

Moron.

Show us where that happened, and how that affected the poor, when all of this controlled by a Congress in which our party's far right are acting like butt holes.

ok:
Obama: "Here you poor old folks, here is a cost of living increase in your SS. Enjoy your 20 extra dollars."
(print print print print)

Old folks: "I can't afford peanut butter any more."

Obama: " You don't need peanut butter, we have to send 45 million dollars to the Sunnis."

Educate yourself, "Congress" is the House and the Senate. The Senate is ruled by the Democrat Party. The Far Right doesn't control enough of Congress to affect anything.

 

[mudwhistle]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

If you make the job-creation environment terrible the jobs go away.

First of all, nobody is transferring wealth to the 2% or the 1%. Secondly, most businesses are operating inside their budget. If you increase their overhead any business major can tell you that the first thing to suffer is wages. Companies start looking for cost-cutting in manpower. Add on top of the massive government intrusion through expensive regulations making it too expensive to have full-time employees in great numbers companies will ether lay-off workers or move somewhere they can afford them.

Obama has people in his administration that think that profits are evil. So they don't want to allow companies profit. So what do you think businesses will do if they can't make a profit in America?????

Go out of business or just leave.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When are you going to give us something, and connect that to our cost of living.

Moron.

Increase in SS = 3.6 percent
Increase in peanut butter = 40 percent

NEW YORK (AP) Clinton announced Friday that the Obama administration would provide the political opposition with an additional $15 million on non-lethal aid as well as $30 million in humanitarian support. The US has provided more than $130 million in humanitarian aid and almost $45 million in non-lethal aid to the rebels.

 

[Erand7899]

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.

Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".

and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?

So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?

Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.

Why not?



That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.

You should attempt to put a little distance between posts that flatly contradict each other. A few posts up, you argued that spending cannot be cut to any great extent, because of previous obligations. Now, you ask why Bush didn't offset his tax cuts with spending cuts.

Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves by getting the economy growing again. That brings in a lot more revenue than an economy in recession.

Now, Obama and the left wing loons, are against broadbased tax cuts, and consequently, our economy has been bouncing along the bottom for almost four years.

Obama is using the same economic strategies that FDR used, and not surprisingly, he has been getting the same results. In a couple of months, the committee that makes the call on recessions will announce that we are already in another recession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.

Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".

and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?

So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?

Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.

Why not?



That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.

You should attempt to put a little distance between posts that flatly contradict each other. A few posts up, you argued that spending cannot be cut to any great extent, because of previous obligations. Now, you ask why Bush didn't offset his tax cuts with spending cuts.

Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves by getting the economy growing again. That brings in a lot more revenue than an economy in recession.

Now, Obama and the left wing loons, are against broadbased tax cuts, and consequently, our economy has been bouncing along the bottom for almost four years.

Obama is using the same economic strategies that FDR used, and not surprisingly, he has been getting the same results. In a couple of months, the committee that makes the call on recessions will announce that we are already in another recession.

Where I said what???

The Bush tax cuts were IN EFFECT for the 2007 to 2009 recession. NO they did not bring in a lot more revenue.

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. How's the economy doing?

Adjusted for inflation, revenue peaked in 2007. That's 5 years under the Bush tax cuts where revenue hasn't increased.

 

[PredFan]

So you are saying the Dems did not want an increase for the poor elderly on SS.

Moron.

Show us where that happened, and how that affected the poor, when all of this controlled by a Congress in which our party's far right are acting like butt holes.

Educate yourself, "Congress" is the House and the Senate. The Senate is ruled by the Democrat Party. The Far Right doesn't control enough of Congress to affect anything.

Apparently you cannot follow a logical line of discussion. Like I said, your hatred for the Tea Party has unhinged you.

Have fun with that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the cuts did nothing of the sort, and then the president running two wars and big government programs off the books busted the economy.

so let me translate, the gov. feels no compunction to live within their means, becasue spend what they wish too, and you believe that they have a right to part the private sector from their money becasue simply becasue they have created the need.

Apparently, in your opinion, the onus is NOT on the gov. to live within its means. IF the private sector sqwaks, tough crap becasue its the governments right ( because they can compel you) and its their money anyway, simply becasue they "need it".

and before you go there, you have a right to make the case that bush went to war and did not 'pay for it' becasue he didn't live within that window of means, I have no argument with that, to an extent, BUT you do know that the deficit was actually going down until jan. 2007...right? Remember?

So what happened to Paygo? Obama and Pelosi signed on to that, so?

Bush did not offset either of his big tax cuts with spending cuts.

Why not?



That the deficit was going down is irrelevant. That it still existed and that the moment the economy tanked, it exploded, is what is relevant. When you keep cutting taxes to points where even during a time of good growth you're still running a deficit, you have to stop cutting taxes.

You should attempt to put a little distance between posts that flatly contradict each other. A few posts up, you argued that spending cannot be cut to any great extent, because of previous obligations. Now, you ask why Bush didn't offset his tax cuts with spending cuts.

Bush's tax cuts paid for themselves by getting the economy growing again. That brings in a lot more revenue than an economy in recession.

Now, Obama and the left wing loons, are against broadbased tax cuts, and consequently, our economy has been bouncing along the bottom for almost four years.

Obama is using the same economic strategies that FDR used, and not surprisingly, he has been getting the same results. In a couple of months, the committee that makes the call on recessions will announce that we are already in another recession.