debates

[chpthril]

The tax cut plan was not intended to be a permanent thing, just another lever to pull to boost our economy at the time. So by default, we go back to the way things were. Unfortunately, this sucks. Taking candy after it was offered is very difficult.

If I explained why I justify Obama's plan you'll just get mad and rant.

The question was, "what's your hand". Meaning, how do you think this will play out? Right, Wrong or Indifferent.

Conversely, isnt it possible that the so called Bush tax cuts were done to put the tax rates back to what they were before, because that increase was not meant to be permanent?

We can call it what ever we want, but when the rate goes back up, its a tax increase on ALL those that work. This is needed to generate revenue for the ever expanding GOV social agenda. Reducing GOV spending is not na option because it would come at the experiences of DEM voters, which are in turn electing those that are expanding said public trough.

[shawndoggy]

Conversely, isnt it possible that the so called Bush tax cuts were done to put the tax rates back to what they were before, because that increase was not meant to be permanent?

We can call it what ever we want, but when the rate goes back up, its a tax increase on ALL those that work. This is needed to generate revenue for the ever expanding GOV social agenda. Reducing GOV spending is not na option because it would come at the experiences of DEM voters, which are in turn electing those that are expanding said public trough.

No, not really. The cuts were passed initially with a sunset provision because they caused the budget not to balance. Congress and the President kicked the can down the road.

[chpthril]

No, not really. The cuts were passed initially with a sunset provision because they caused the budget not to balance. Congress and the President kicked the can down the road.

It was a hypothetical question for nobody. But, if a budget doesnt balance, one needs to look at whats going out, thats economics 101. If I am spending more then i am earning, the answer is not to go into the HR office at work and demand a raise, right? Well, this is exactly what the US GOV is doing. They are depending more in the form of taxes, from those that pay the bills.

[shawndoggy]

It was a hypothetical question for nobody. But, if a budget doesnt balance, one needs to look at whats going out, thats economics 101. If I am spending more then i am earning, the answer is not to go into the HR office at work and demand a raise, right? Well, this is exactly what the US GOV is doing. They are depending more in the form of taxes, from those that pay the bills.

Well, not really. If we are attacked, are we going to forego a military response till the numbers look better? If we see a huge economic downturn, are we going to tell folks that the social safetynet is an illusion? If we have more retirees than workers, are we going to cut retiree benefits?

Sometimes deficit spending is an absolute necessity (military response to an attack, for instance). The problem is that it has become absolutely chronic, and there's no effort to pay down the debt.

Not to mention that all aspects of government spending actually help the economy (poor people are still poor after all that Obama largess, so they're spending the money at stores with employees who buy products from factories which buy raw materials from commodities producers). It's not like the money just vanishes down the "poor drain." Likewise some services like courts, sec, etc. help the economy by creating an environment of predictability (the rule of law).

When you cut government spending, there's no two ways about it, you put people out of work.

Which is not a defense of overspending. At all. We do need to reign in spending. Government never shrinks, and citizens and legislators must keep it in check.

But we also need to acknowledge that we asked for all of that overspending. Wars, welfare, social security, FEMA, interstate highways, pell grants, etc., ain't free.

[chpthril]

Well, not really. If we are attacked, are we going to forego a military response till the numbers look better

Military/defense is like health insurance, its a necessity. In actuality, Obama is actually putting solders out of work and those that have jobs in the private sector that are connected to the military. The Libs would love to see the military scaled back to a size thats only large enough to protect it (the GOV) from a rock and stone wielding citizen. Thats all thats needed when our guns are taken from us, which Obama and the UN are supporting.

If we see a huge economic downturn, are we going to tell folks that the social safetynet is an illusion?

Umm, we are still in one. We have WAY too many Cousin Eddies in the country that are holding out for a management position. The once "safety net" system is a mess now. We are no longer giving a helping hand to those that need it, we are supporting those that are CHOOSING to abuse the system.

We need to stop governing by emotion, i.e. "fair". Whats fair, is to stop expecting those with more to give to you because you thinks its unfair.

Not to mention that all aspects of government spending actually help the economy (poor people are still poor after all that Obama largess, so they're spending the money at stores with employees who buy products from factories which buy raw materials from commodities producers). It's not like the money just vanishes down the "poor drain."

Thats interesting, you just described trickle-down economics. The Dems have proven that it is a failure and has not worked in the 200+ year history of this country. So unless im missing something, does trickle-down only work if its being controlled and distributed by the GOV? This is exactly what the current Admin wants the uninformed to believe. They are being told that only the GOV knows whats best for them and that if the GOV feels they need it, the GOV will be the one to provide it and in the proper quantity.

When you cut government spending, there's no two ways about it, you put people out of work

When you raise taxes on those creating jobs in the private sector, theres no two ways about it, you put people out of work.

But we also need to acknowledge that we asked for all of that overspending. Wars, welfare, social security, FEMA, interstate highways, pell grants, etc., ain't free.

Im not saying that GOV needs to stop the spending. I am saying that raising taxes to off-set the out of control spending is not the answer. Class warfare is not the answer. Eliminating the incentive to be self sufficient is not the answer.

[Timmy!]

When you raise taxes on those creating jobs in the private sector, theres no two ways about it, you put people out of work.

Give us an example. I'm not saying that raising taxes is the answer, I just want to see how it puts people out of work. If a guy is bringing home $10 million a year, how much more will he pay in tax and why does he have to let people go? The only way we are paying off $16 trillion is by raising more revenue and spending less. Someone/everyone is going to pay more. It's simple math.

[Timmy!]

BTW - Profits are up, why aren't businesses hiring? Greed. They want all that money for themselves!
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news....html?iid=Lead

[chpthril]

BTW - Profits are up, why aren't businesses hiring? Greed. They want all that money for themselves!
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news....html?iid=Lead

This is an easy one. Employee costs are going up. Companies can do a number of things, which have been covered by me a few pages back.

Lay off
not hire
freeze wages
reduce wages
reduce hours of full-time employees
hire more part-rime to compensate for the reduced full-time workers.
pass cost on to the consumer

Each has a negative impact on the economy. Which group do you want to be in?

[Timmy!]

This is an easy one. Employee costs are going up. Companies can do a number of things, which have been covered by me a few pages back.

Lay off
not hire
freeze wages
reduce wages
reduce hours of full-time employees
hire more part-rime to compensate for the reduced full-time workers.
pass cost on to the consumer

Each has a negative impact on the economy. Which group do you want to be in?

Record profits. I.E. - they are making more money than ever. Dip into the profit a little bit and pay the employee more and they will spend more or hire more people and take a little bit less of a cut.

[chpthril]

Give us an example. I'm not saying that raising taxes is the answer, I just want to see how it puts people out of work. If a guy is bringing home $10 million a year, how much more will he pay in tax and why does he have to let people go? The only way we are paying off $16 trillion is by raising more revenue and spending less. Someone/everyone is going to pay more. It's simple math.

Keep in mind that wee are not only talking personal taxes here, corporate tax liabilities are growing also. In some cases, those liabilities are uncertain. It makes it hard to grow a business when you do not know what your fiscal year end expenses are going to be.

If the guy in your example is like many many small business owners, that is not his "Bring-home" on a W-2, but rather his company's income that gets claimed on his personal income taxes. Out of that, he will have to pay those taxes. This leaves less money to cover the fixed cost like rent, variable costs like utilities and employee costs, and capital for expansion and inventory. One way for a company to reduce cost and save cash for paying those taxes, is to eliminate employees.

[chpthril]

Record profits. I.E. - they are making more money than ever. Dip into the profit a little bit and pay the employee more and they will spend more or hire more people and take a little bit less of a cut.

Why is it so evil for a person or a company (which is many people) live the american dream?

You also need to understand that when those articles list "record profits", they are referring to gross profits. With employee costs and tax liabilities going up, the company's net is probably going down. The so called record profits could also be attributed to the those costs getting passed on to the consumer.

[shawndoggy]

Military/defense is like health insurance, its a necessity. In actuality, Obama is actually putting solders out of work and those that have jobs in the private sector that are connected to the military. The Libs would love to see the military scaled back to a size thats only large enough to protect it (the GOV) from a rock and stone wielding citizen. Thats all thats needed when our guns are taken from us, which Obama and the UN are supporting.

Really? I hadn't heard about taking our guns away. Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?

Thats interesting, you just described trickle-down economics.

Actually, trickle up. Pour money on the rich and it trickles down, Pour money on the poor, it trickles up.

Im not saying that GOV needs to stop the spending. I am saying that raising taxes to off-set the out of control spending is not the answer. Class warfare is not the answer. Eliminating the incentive to be self sufficient is not the answer.

If you don't cut spending, and you can't raise taxes, how do you cover the deficit? Even if we got rid of every last federal welfare program altogether, that only saves you 12% of the federal budget (and assumes that revenues don't go down when you take that money out of the economy and those government workers out). That doesn't close the gap. So how do we do it if you are emperor of the world? What's the specific plan?

[Nobody]

Give us an example. I'm not saying that raising taxes is the answer, I just want to see how it puts people out of work. If a guy is bringing home $10 million a year, how much more will he pay in tax and why does he have to let people go? The only way we are paying off $16 trillion is by raising more revenue and spending less. Someone/everyone is going to pay more. It's simple math.

There will always be someone who claims raising the minimum wage 25 cents will put thousands out of work. These are typically guys (gals too) that have little regard for the person who just made their sandwich, or the guy who washed the dishes after a nice dinner.

[Nobody]

Record profits. I.E. - they are making more money than ever. Dip into the profit a little bit and pay the employee more and they will spend more or hire more people and take a little bit less of a cut.

This is very true. Back in the 80's if a public corporation produced greater than 3% profit they were king of the hill on wall street. Today WS wants to see 20% or higher to be a golden child.

[chpthril]

Really? I hadn't heard about taking our guns away. Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?



Actually, trickle up. Pour money on the rich and it trickles down, Pour money on the poor, it trickles up.



If you don't cut spending, and you can't raise taxes, how do you cover the deficit? Even if we got rid of every last federal welfare program altogether, that only saves you 12% of the federal budget (and assumes that revenues don't go down when you take that money out of the economy and those government workers out). That doesn't close the gap. So how do we do it if you are emperor of the world? What's the specific plan?

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201...ond-amendment/

Word is that within hours of winning his 2nd term election, Obama phoned the head of the UN and stated he was on board with it.

Its actually trickle down because the US GOV is acting as an employer to those people. Pays them a monthly salary, provides benefits, pays a monthly food per-diam, etc. The employees only job duty is to vote for these board of directors every 2 years.

Once again, spending has to be cut. Not stopped, but cut. If you reduce spending, you reduce the need for income. Taxing the "rich" like Obama wants, only floats the country for something like 6 days. Anyone that thinks his war on the rich is about balancing the budget, has been hoodwinked. Its about being "fair". punishing the successful.