The fiscally irresponsible right refuted on extension of Bush taxcuts

[Jarhead]

Although neither is a perfect solution, if it ever came down to choice, I would most definitely prefer Marxism over Corporate fascism, which is where we were headed (and still are). Sorry, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Not sure I can agree with you as long as anyone who wants has the right to start their own company.

And as soon as they start being profitable and successful, some Big Guy will knock on the door and suck the life right out of the small guy. Takeovers and hostile takeovers are becoming the norm.

You can only be a victim of a hostile takeover if you are interested in a takeover to begin with.

If you allow your greed to prompt you to make decisions that result in you being taken over, you should consider yourself a vcictim of your own greed.

I am not public...I am not a victim of a takeover...I have great employees...and I am successful. Struggling a bit now, but my greed or lack of it, has allowed me to be in control of my destiny.

I suggest you get off that "victim" thing. You can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be a victim....and it is usually personal greed that allows you to be a victim.

 

[MaggieMae]

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

Conservatives don't believe that stuff, are you kidding? If figures and trends don't fit neatly into their Randian agenda, it all must be coming from that untrustworthy liberal media or the federal government itself. Only THEIR sources are correct.

No Maggie. Not for all of us. My source is experience and logic.

Consumer demand was met after the tax cuts. Sadly the tax cuts did not go to human need...it went to technology. There was no need to increase staff equally with the need to meet demand.....technology actually mminimizes the need for humans.

Yes, I agree. The tax cuts do not create jobs. But right now, demand is down. When demand starts to increase, there will be the need to replensih much of what was laid off. And taking money out of the pockets of the employers before hand is by no means a way to let that happen....not saying it will help to keep the cutsd in place...but there is a greater chance it will hurt.

I agree that technology has replaced much of manufacturing (as well as offshoring), which is why many of the lost jobs will never return. It's also why this country needs to invest in its future by using technology (and technical talent) to get moving on alternative energy which spells not just urgency for the obvious reasons, but jobs jobs and more jobs. But we can't get conservatives to get that, either. Maybe you're an exception. I don't know what kind of business you have, so when I speak my mind here, I'm talking in general, fully realizing that not every business (nor individual) fits a mold.

 

[MaggieMae]

Warren Buffett Urges Higher Corporate Taxes
Excerpt from Warren Buffett's letter to his shareholders, 2004:
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

I'm aware of Warren Buffett's political rhetoric, as well as his own financial practices. If he thinks the government needs more money why doesn't he pay more himself?

I think he does. He's one of the most generous philanthropists alive.

 

[MaggieMae]

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

No ma'am. Not at all. Recessions come in cycles and are largely based on marklet saturation. We have recovered without stimuli in the past and we would have this time around as well (IMHO).The demand for goods and services increases in time...and all I am saying is to take more money out of the pockets of business owners after they had multiple quarters of not making the kind of money they are sued to is not smart....whereas it may not help to roll back the tax cuts, it very well may hurt.

I say roll them back...but wait until companies are prosperous again.

But they won't be prosperous until people have the money to start spending again, and they won't start doing that while the employment situation is still shakey. It's a vicious circle. Which comes first? No, it's actually a Catch-22 situation!

 

[MaggieMae]

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

I disagree with that. Recessions do spur innovation, and innovation requires investment. The problem with *this* recession is that the incentive to take a risk has been and still is declining severely. Therefore there will be much less innovation out there.

Finally, something we can agree on!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The tax cuts were originally done to stimulate the economy and produce jobs.

The companies took the cuts and immediately shipped more jobs overseas.

They don't want them to expire because they got used to not paying their fair share.

You know......if the tax cuts actually worked, I'd be one of the ones saying to extend them, but sadly, they didn't.

 

[Jarhead]

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

No ma'am. Not at all. Recessions come in cycles and are largely based on marklet saturation. We have recovered without stimuli in the past and we would have this time around as well (IMHO).The demand for goods and services increases in time...and all I am saying is to take more money out of the pockets of business owners after they had multiple quarters of not making the kind of money they are sued to is not smart....whereas it may not help to roll back the tax cuts, it very well may hurt.

I say roll them back...but wait until companies are prosperous again.

But they won't be prosperous until people have the money to start spending again, and they won't start doing that while the employment situation is still shakey. It's a vicious circle. Which comes first? No, it's actually a Catch-22 situation!

On the outside, yes, it appears to be a catch 22.
However, demand is not always a product of people having money in their pockets. It is also a product of need. As TV's break, new ones are bought byu those that are employed.....as cars die, the same thing...cell pho9nes, etc......and it builds up to an increase in demand.....often all at once.....

In non recession times People buy based on "whats new"....and in a recession when those "new things" become old, those with jobs buy new again...

It is not complicated...but it is hard to accept...I agree...but it IS how we recover from recessions....

No..I am not saying it is PLANNED obsolescence.....but obsolescence DOES play a roll in recession recovery.

 

[MaggieMae]

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

This is not your "usual" recession. Hello?

You make no sense by supporting the very job creators who have caused the stock market to dramatically rise. They ARE doing something with their profits, just not hiring. If most employers were making adjustments in the way they do business, studying ways to produce a better widget or service during this recession and therefore prefer to use existing profits to strengthen their businesses in anticipation of future hiring, that would be one thing. But that's not what they're doing. It's almost as thought they want some guarantee that they will forever be profitable. And that's just flat-out nuts.

Excuse me but I disagree.

This was very much a usual recession. What made it unusual was it was used to scare people to vote for a candidate. ANd as we all know, when the consumer is scared, they make decisions that are not in the best interest of economic growth.

What caused this recession had nothing to do with the credit meltdown.

I suggest you spend a bit more time understanding economics.

Omagod. Please tell me you don't believe that. Download this, and hear it straight from some of the people who caused it and how their risky decisions brought down the big investment banks, who were also risking investors' money they could not back up with assets:

News Headlines

 

[MaggieMae]

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

I disagree with that. Recessions do spur innovation, and innovation requires investment. The problem with *this* recession is that the incentive to take a risk has been and still is declining severely. Therefore there will be much less innovation out there.

As long as we have our "leaders" saying that things are bad and would been worse without a stimulus...and the businesses are evil and greedy.....and the end is not near.....and we need to tighteen our belts...and being a business owner means you are evil and greedy....and the rich dont care.....

We will go nowhere.

It is all about leadership and knowing what to say and when to say it.

McCain was a bad choice of candidate....but he did one thing right. He tried to quell the fears of the public when he said the "fundamentals of the economy are sound".....He was acting as a leader.

But you know how children can be. They took it and ran with it.

Ironically, part of the problem was that for years leading up to the financial disaster, people like Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank were telling the Congress and thus the American people that everything was hunky-dory. Suddenly, Hank Paulson got a heads up when Bear-Stearns (one of the biggest investment banks on Wall Street) was about to go belly up, causing a run on banks. That was almost a year before TARP was passed (you might study that, yourself), and the banking ceos did everything in their power to save their own asses from the chopping block because they were all doing the same thing. If anyone with any sense, and power, had seen the writing on the wall long before a bailout was necessary and NOT continued to hoodwink everyone into thinking all was well, the crisis might have been milder.

 

[Jarhead]

This is not your "usual" recession. Hello?

You make no sense by supporting the very job creators who have caused the stock market to dramatically rise. They ARE doing something with their profits, just not hiring. If most employers were making adjustments in the way they do business, studying ways to produce a better widget or service during this recession and therefore prefer to use existing profits to strengthen their businesses in anticipation of future hiring, that would be one thing. But that's not what they're doing. It's almost as thought they want some guarantee that they will forever be profitable. And that's just flat-out nuts.

Excuse me but I disagree.

This was very much a usual recession. What made it unusual was it was used to scare people to vote for a candidate. ANd as we all know, when the consumer is scared, they make decisions that are not in the best interest of economic growth.

What caused this recession had nothing to do with the credit meltdown.

I suggest you spend a bit more time understanding economics.

Omagod. Please tell me you don't believe that. Download this, and hear it straight from some of the people who caused it and how their risky decisions brought down the big investment banks, who were also risking investors' money they could not back up with assets:

News Headlines

I am well aware of what caused the downturn in the market and well aware of what caused the credit meltdown.

Likewise, I am well aware of what casued the subsequent increase in the market.

I simply responded to your comment that this is not your typical recession.

It is your typical recession.

Do not confuse a market drop and a credit crunch with a recession. With or without them, we had a recession coming.

Thus why I made the economics comment.

What made this recession worse was our leadership claiming it was the worse recession since the great depression. Seems he forgot about the Carter years when we had double digit unemployment and prime rates of over 20%....

Fear dictates spending habits.

 

[asterism]

The tax cuts were originally done to stimulate the economy and produce jobs.

The companies took the cuts and immediately shipped more jobs overseas.

They don't want them to expire because they got used to not paying their fair share.

You know......if the tax cuts actually worked, I'd be one of the ones saying to extend them, but sadly, they didn't.

If that were true there never would have been any jobs added at all. As it turns out there were jobs added but they and many more have since disappeared due to the financial meltdown.

 

[Jarhead]

I disagree with that. Recessions do spur innovation, and innovation requires investment. The problem with *this* recession is that the incentive to take a risk has been and still is declining severely. Therefore there will be much less innovation out there.

As long as we have our "leaders" saying that things are bad and would been worse without a stimulus...and the businesses are evil and greedy.....and the end is not near.....and we need to tighteen our belts...and being a business owner means you are evil and greedy....and the rich dont care.....

We will go nowhere.

It is all about leadership and knowing what to say and when to say it.

McCain was a bad choice of candidate....but he did one thing right. He tried to quell the fears of the public when he said the "fundamentals of the economy are sound".....He was acting as a leader.

But you know how children can be. They took it and ran with it.

Ironically, part of the problem was that for years leading up to the financial disaster, people like Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank were telling the Congress and thus the American people that everything was hunky-dory. Suddenly, Hank Paulson got a heads up when Bear-Stearns (one of the biggest investment banks on Wall Street) was about to go belly up, causing a run on banks. That was almost a year before TARP was passed (you might study that, yourself), and the banking ceos did everything in their power to save their own asses from the chopping block because they were all doing the same thing. If anyone with any sense, and power, had seen the writing on the wall long before a bailout was necessary and NOT continued to hoodwink everyone into thinking all was well, the crisis might have been milder.

In my 52 years I have seen industries die...I saw the advertising industry boom and then die...I watched Shearson buy up American Express and EF Hutton and then lose half their wealth...I watched Fiurst Boston go belly up....I watched top law Frims build up and die like Finley Kumble Wagner Hein and Unterberg...and they all had a major impact on their industries.....

The problem was government intervention. Let them fail. There are plenty of people out there that will pick up the slack and meet the demand for the industry.

TARP was a farce. Sure it worked, but who needed it? Let them fail and the little boys and girls would have gladly picked up the slack.

That is how capitalism CORRECTS itself. It lets the free market correct it.

I recall how ad agenices were being swallowed up by the big boys....and the little ones sat around and waited.....Sure enough, those top agencies tried to manipulate the oligopoly and set prices too high thinking the little boys would follow...and they didnt......and the big boys suffered and the little boys picked up the slack.

Oligopolies control themselves...and when the big boys try to deviate, they collapse and the little boys pick up the slack.

TARP did nothing but punish the pateince of the little boys while it rewarded the manipulators.

 

[Oddball]

The tax cuts were originally done to stimulate the economy and produce jobs.

The companies took the cuts and immediately shipped more jobs overseas.

They don't want them to expire because they got used to not paying their fair share.

You know......if the tax cuts actually worked, I'd be one of the ones saying to extend them, but sadly, they didn't.

The tax cuts were largely for individuals, not businesses.

But don't let niggling little facts get in the way of a nice hallucinating populist boilerplate rant.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

Finally a voice of reason, the so called "job creators" failed badly with an F-minus in job stimulation and creation yet the monkeys in the Republican party wants to sell to the American people that these very same people are more trustworthy than the government, they need to wake up see reality instead of playing the trust me game.

 

[Jarhead]

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

Finally a voice of reason, the so called "job creators" failed badly with an F-minus in job stimulation and creation yet the monkeys in the Republican party wants to sell to the American people that these very same people are more trustworthy than the government, they need to wake up see reality instead of playing the trust me game.

How much money will the tax cuts save?

Now, bear in mind...the government promised us job creation and unemployment no higher than 8% with that number decreasing 6 months into the stimulus.....at the cost of about a trillion dollars.

And that did not happen.

So they were wrong with THEIR theory...

Sop hoiw much will the tax cut rollback save?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

Finally a voice of reason, the so called "job creators" failed badly with an F-minus in job stimulation and creation yet the monkeys in the Republican party wants to sell to the American people that these very same people are more trustworthy than the government, they need to wake up see reality instead of playing the trust me game.

How much money will the tax cuts save?

Now, bear in mind...the government promised us job creation and unemployment no higher than 8% with that number decreasing 6 months into the stimulus.....at the cost of about a trillion dollars.

And that did not happen.

So they were wrong with THEIR theory...

Sop hoiw much will the tax cut rollback save?

Monkey, your reasoning is unsound, it has already been proven that keeping the tax cuts will increase the deficit so asking me the question about how much will it save is stupid, the point is to not increase the budget.

 

[Jarhead]

Finally a voice of reason, the so called "job creators" failed badly with an F-minus in job stimulation and creation yet the monkeys in the Republican party wants to sell to the American people that these very same people are more trustworthy than the government, they need to wake up see reality instead of playing the trust me game.

How much money will the tax cuts save?

Now, bear in mind...the government promised us job creation and unemployment no higher than 8% with that number decreasing 6 months into the stimulus.....at the cost of about a trillion dollars.

And that did not happen.

So they were wrong with THEIR theory...

Sop hoiw much will the tax cut rollback save?

Monkey, your reasoning is unsound, it has already been proven that keeping the tax cuts will increase the deficit so asking me the question about how much will it save is stupid, the point is to not increase the budget.

Yes, I know that.

I was responding to your "the Republican party wants to sell to the American people that these very same people are more trustworthy than the government".....

So they are simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Dont you get who I am? I think both parties are a bunch of politicalhacks with only party in mind and as opposed to discussing all the good they are doing they are continually talking about all the bad the other party is doing....becuse neither party has done much good for our country over the past 10 years.

 

[Oddball]

Monkey, your reasoning is unsound, it has already been proven that keeping the tax cuts will increase the deficit so asking me the question about how much will it save is stupid, the point is to not increase the budget.

The only reasoning that is unsound here is yours.

Without profligate spending, there are no deficits...Nobody runs up their credit card balances by leaving it in their wallet.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Monkey, your reasoning is unsound, it has already been proven that keeping the tax cuts will increase the deficit so asking me the question about how much will it save is stupid, the point is to not increase the budget.

The only reasoning that is unsound here is yours.

Without profligate spending, there are no deficits...Nobody runs up their credit card balances by leaving it in their wallet.

Are you talking to me? Primate aren't supposed to be talking, snack on some bananas monkey, your monkey spam is unintelligible, in plain terms stated, shut your mouth until you post facts, your reasoning and trolling me nothing to me.

 

[Oddball]

Whatever, knuckle dragger.

Fact remains that spending is the problem, not letting people keep what belongs to them in the first place.

You must be in a competition with Jake the Fake for the biggest "right-of-center" poseur.