Politics, Politics, Politics

[MacNfries]

Well, darn, folks .... come on, right-wingers, what's your counter-punch to what I just said?
Anything I said false? Not factual? Maybe Mitch McConnell will come in and take credit for the Clinton growth years. He's already said that the Republicans rejecting Obama policies is the reason for the current economic growth. You think?

 

[Daphne&D]

Now now Mac, stop gloating. It will take them some time to look it up on wiki. LOL

 

[MacNfries]

Now now Mac, stop gloating. It will take them some time to look it up on wiki. LOL

And I haven't even gotten to the "extension of the Bush tax cuts" when they were suppost to expire, but the Republicans said they would stop every piece of Obama legislation unless Obama extended the tax cuts another 2 years ... which is projected to have cost the US another $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. That's when Grover stepped in, made all Republicans sign a pledge to not agree to any tax increases. So, Republicans take tax increases OFF the table of negotiations with the President, and are willing to accept only entitlement cuts ... even going as far to decline a 4:1 entitlement cuts to tax increase deal, and take an oath on TV that they will not accept any deals from the President that include tax increases. Please help me, here, HOW is that negotiating ... most people call it dictating.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/republic...-legislation-till-bush-tax-cuts-are-extended/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/norquist-warns-gop-not-to-compromise-on-bush-tax-cuts
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/norquists-tax-pledge-what-it-is-and-how-it-started/

Then, after Obama reluctantly agreed to extend them, the Republicans still started blocking any legislation he wanted. I heard that he asked for lemon for his tea and they even refused him that!
The thing is, practically every one of the current GOP candidates (except Trump) are promising to return to the Trickle Down yet AGAIN if they are elected! Now WHY would informed voters even consider that?

So, to be clear, I'm not denying the severity of the current GDP/Nat'l Debt situation, I'm simply objecting to the methodology Republicans want to FIX IT ... when it was their methodology that created the problem, and its clear Supply Side Economics is NOT the solution.
My question is "What else do the Republicans have to offer?"

 

[TwoBiFour]

What do the Democrats bring to the table? More entitlements, more Welfare, higher taxes and now Obama Care that is all killing the middle class also. Robin Hood economics don't work either. As you so eagerly pointed out - the rich don't pay taxes. Where do you think the money for these entitlements come from? (Which by the way I hate that name, because no one is "entitled" to anything.) Guess who don't qualify for Obama care? the Middle class - Guess who can't afford private health care if not provided by their employment? The Middle class. Guess who gets fined the most for not having it - the middle class.

But anyways, what you fail to see is that our current government, GOP and Democrat alike want nothing more than for us to be total dependent on the government. They simple disagree on how to reach that point. Which is good for them because it keeps us bickering over trivial bull crap so they can pull our rights and freedoms right out from under our nose.

Again, you really need to LOOK at what is going on in the country and see what is actually happening to families and family values. Get away from your charts and graphs and statistics. Ever hear the expression "Looks good on paper"? The toughest financial times for my family (and my business) were Clinton and Now Obama, Sorry but your charts won't show that now will it. Democrats create laws and taxes that ******* small business, pull up any chart you want refuting that, but from life experience I promise you they are incorrect.

Personally I don't like either side, but at least the GOP gives me the tools I need to make a life for myself and the chance to become successful, All I've seen the Dems do is try to take that right away and keep everyone under their thumb and watchful eye.

 

[MacNfries]

What do the Democrats bring to the table? More entitlements, more Welfare, higher taxes and now Obama Care that is all killing the middle class also. Robin Hood economics don't work either ....

More entitlements ... more welfare ... higher taxes ... Robin Hood economics: TwoFi, what you may be ignoring is that there is no difference between a "entitlement" and a "subsidy" other than WHO is getting them. As Winston Churchill once said, "a hole, is a hole, is a hole", and when it comes to entitlements, that includes subsidies, and the top 10% wage earners and corporations receive over 70% of the Free Stuff. Government subsidies include tax exclusions, production reimbursements, energy, exports, etc ... the Republicans have simply vilified the working poor citizens as the leaches of society, and selling voters that the poor are taking from them. I'm not sure if you're calling Social Security & Medicare "welfare", but IF you are, you should know that we pay INTO those programs all our working lives. Those ARE entitlements. It was our politicians, starting with Lyndon Johnson, who started borrowing from our Social Security fund ... and it was Reagan in the '80's that implemented 11 new taxes on the middleclass to as he said "shore up Social Security for the next 20 or so years", but then spent those funds to fund his Star Wars, military build up, etc.. You, right now, very likely receive subsidies that total up to way more than an individual earning poverty wages and receiving those socall entitlements & welfare you refer too. Do you itemize your taxes? Do you have a mortgage deduction? Do you have business expenses, maybe a leased car for your work, etc? Investments? Those subsidies are part of the "free stuff", too. The working poor do not have those.

For example, farm subsidies is one of the biggest welfares for corporations ... however, the largest 7% of corporate farmers receive over 45% of all the farm subsidies. The SNAP program ( a part of the farm subsidies) for the children of poor farmers, was cut 50% by Republicans last year. Did you know that over a dozen Republicans, who voted to cut that program, are receiving farm subsidies themselves? Example: Stephen Fincher, R-Tn received over $70,000 last year, and over the past 14 years has received over $3.5 million in farm subsidies. The average SNAP benefit to poor farmers is just $1,400 a year, yet he voted to cut that benefit to the farm subsidies HE RECEIVES. And oil subsidies ... do we need to go there?

.... Get away from your charts and graphs and statistics. Ever hear the expression "Looks good on paper"? The toughest financial times for my family (and my business) were Clinton and Now Obama, Sorry but your charts won't show that now will it. Democrats create laws and taxes that ******* small business, pull up any chart you want refuting that, but from life experience I promise you they are incorrect....

The charts and graphs make for an honest, identifiable discussion ... PROOF. You can't simply pile 2 stacks of money on the table, one labeled Poor, and one labeled Rich, and say the stacks are equal, because they're not. Charts & graphs provide a visual "accounting". We have developed our government into an oligarchy, allowing the rich & powerful to dictate Washington policy and taxation. We're no longer a one person-one vote country. In fact, one party is trying to suppress the poor voters. The system should have checks & balances to help avoid the system from becoming rigged. Big Money (with no help from Citizens United ruling) has tilted the fairness the past 30+ years. Come on, 7,000 pages to the IRS Tax Code weren't written with the poor in mind ... you think?

..... at least the GOP gives me the tools I need to make a life for myself and the chance to become successful, All I've seen the Dems do is try to take that right away and keep everyone under their thumb and watchful eye.

I don't know what you do, or how you benefited from the GOP but was penalized by the Dems. But the middleclass benefits from ACA just like everyone else that has the coverage. I believe you are referring to the subsidy reimbursements, based on your income. Still, the ACA could run a lot more efficiently IF Republicans would quit obstructing its development. If everyone was covered under the system, if the exchanges were developed to create competition, etc ... the program would generate lower premiums. Its not being run that way because Republicans want to see it fail and want to go back to a system that was unfairly slanted to the insurance companies. There were simply too many people walking into the emergency rooms for their medical care, then walking out without paying, sticking you and me with the bills by paying higher premiums. My dad just had full spine MRI's and CATs done this year; the health service providers billed him for over $28,000 ... the insurance provider (United Healthcare) negotiated that down to under $7,000, and he ended up paying around $800 his share. That wouldn't have happened under the OLD plans prior to ACA, trust me.

Just to remind you, Republicans are insistent in shrinking the government by privatizing everything from social security, medicare/medicaid, education, postal service, etc .... everything. No workers comp, no labor laws, no minimum wage, no EPA ... no NOTHING.

 

[MacNfries]

Again, and I'll say this as a single sentence, my gripe with Republicans is that they want to return to the "cut taxes on the rich & corporations" to create jobs and opportunity for the middleclass & poor; it HAS NOT WORKED for the past 35 years, and will not WORK in the future.

 

[Alanm]

Again, and I'll say this as a single sentence, my gripe with Republicans is that they want to return to the "cut taxes on the rich & corporations" to create jobs and opportunity for the middleclass & poor; it HAS NOT WORKED for the past 35 years, and will not WORK in the future.

View attachment 637785

How about we just go to a flat tax and forget about tax brackets based on income. For an example 25% and everybody pays the same tax % no loopholes, nothing.

 

[MacNfries]

How about we just go to a flat tax and forget about tax brackets based on income. For an example 25% and everybody pays the same tax % no loopholes, nothing.

Your idea sounds "honest enough", but I'm afraid the 1%ers would not go along with a flat tax, of any kind, simply because they already benefit from all the loopholes & deductions they receive. In fact, if the nation could go to a flat tax with no loopholes & deductions, for all income (individual & corporate) the rate wouldn't have to be as high as 25% for individuals ... probably more like 15%, and the corporate tax rate would be more like 15-20%.
Check out this chart on the deductions:



Their best bet is to continue manipulating Congress to provide more loopholes. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was recently quoted as saying "It's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally. It's a game we play, and I see nothing wrong with playing the game because we set it up that way."
Coincidently, in the past 5 years America's wealth increased from $47 trillion to over $80 trillion, and the richest 1% increased their fortunes by over $5 million each, and much was untaxed. So, I believe the 1%ers love the game just as it is being played, with over 7,000 pages of tax codes.
Subsidies, as of 2013, was a $1.3 trillion expense to the revenue, and that was without Medicare. With ACA, I'm not sure what it is now.

 

[Steele@730]

You make my point for me, I'm a baby of the 90s, good health is a way of life. In the 50s they were still cleaning ******* with leaches, Ok maybe medicine wasn't that that bad. Your word were "Catching childhood disease was pretty typical" What was the turning point, vaccinations. Do we stop revert back to the old ways, letting catching childhood become the norm? Go to the bog and capture leaches once more? Children's strong suit is not hygiene, the typical runny noise ends up everywhere but a tissue

I agree to a piint on most of what has been said, whoever today we seem to insulate our ******* from coming into contact with bacteria and viruses. One it's impractical and two it weakens the immune system (the less you use it the weaker it becomes... ie arm in a cast). Vaccinate yes, but we can't forget that our immune system is designed to fight off viruses and bacterial infections, this is one of the main reasons people who take antibiotic (cold and flue season) usually get sick again (weak immune system). Throughout time there has always been this thing call survival of the fittest and that's never going to change. However preventive maintenance or strengthing our systems has always played a important factor and most diseases are not disease only effects of the body missing nutrients (ie scurvy, high bp, CAD but big farm can't make any $$$ from telling you that) :-o

 

[Bigwhtcockslut]

It seems that the fact of WHO controlled Congress only is important when its a Democratic congress and the conservative's point is to be negative ... here are the FACTS that some HERE fail to provide.
Ultimately, the President puts his signature on what comes out of Washington DC ... as with the skyrocketing National Debt. The Deficit Spending and Nat'l Debt started with the Walks On Water Reagan. The reason I continue pointing this out is because Republicans have endorsed Supply Side "Trickle Down" as their party platform, even to this day, and even as 35 years of history has proven its failure. All they do is shift tax revenue away from the wealthy & the corporations to the middleclass & poor ... its history, easy to prove.

View attachment 631274

One thing I do know, of all the Presidents that have held office, none have been as disrespected as President Obama. And Congress can't say they've tried to work with the President, not after 310+ filibusters (more than all the other Presidents added together), 61 Congressional votes to stop ACA, and closing down the government twice to stop debt ceiling increases & damaging the country's credit rating ... Reagan only raised the debt ceiling 18 times and never was treated by Democrats like Obama has been treated by Republicans.

Uh, that chart is clearly wrong...

Republicans have controlled the Senate for less than a year...

 

[Torpedo]

You're still not seeing the vastness of the recent recession. The "top down" Supply Side was a big cause of this most recent recession & 3 decades of flat wages. Giving the corporations and wealthy more money in hopes that they would create jobs; instead, they got greedy and hid their profits, and got wealthier from it. That only created an hour-glass economy ... squeezing out the middleclass, and creating the rich & poor. THAT is the cause of the rising number of poor people, Torp ... you keep saying all you're seeing is more poor people ... the hourglass effect is what causes this.

More money needs to be put into the hands of those who need and will spend it on things they need ... appliances, furniture, cars, food etc ... all Republicans are doing is killing that by refusing a minimum wage, supporting "right to work" states, etc. Their policies and ideas don't work, yet they want to continue them. When you cut taxes as drastically as Reagan and the Bushes have done, of course there's going to be a huge deficit because you cut REVENUE. Cutting taxes (revenue) only works when applied at the appropriate time in the business & economic cycle. Republicans have this mindset that poor people are leaches ... why would the words "makers & takers", the "bottom 47%ers" and "welfare mamas" keep coming up in the Republican speeches? Reagan hated poor people ... saw them as "takers", and Supply Side was no more than a tax shifting strategy for the wealthiest Americans. He got BACK the revenue that the poor received in his tax cuts by creating 11 different taxes on the middleclass. The middleclass got poorer, Torp. Why do you think the Koch Brothers are spending close to a billion dollars on getting Republians elected in state governments? Look at these charts:

View attachment 636859

.... Look at the DATES! Look at the SOURCE! I didn't fabricate these graphs, Torp. This is where income inequality and deficit spending started. What do you propose the real reason was? .... it was GREED and the influence the wealthy, like the Kochs had on the Washington establishment. The federal tax code book didn't grow by 6,000+ pages because of the poor or middleclass.
Almost 35 years of top down tax cutting ... go look at the graphs when Clinton INCREASED taxes in the late '90's. Revenue went UP, and the deficit spending went away. Then Bush come in, and started that "Trickle Down" all over again, and even VP Cheney said "deficit spending doesn't matter" as he got richer off of it. Bush parachuted OUT OF THE CAR as he drove the US economy off the cliff, and handed the steering wheel to Obama ... the country was fixing to go into a Great Depression. What other President can you recall being handed a crashing economy like Obama received? I think Obama did fairly good considering the 300+ filibusters and downgrading of our credit rating that the Republicans have given him in their attempt to "work with the President". Bailing out Wall Street pissed me off, too!
I swear, I don't think Republicans understand that cutting taxes, and decreasing revenue are synomynous. Republicans need a new, fuck'n playbook, damn!

You go on and on and on about the sins of the Republicans The Democrats have hardly done any better. The current administration has taken the national debt from around 10 trillion to over 18 trillion. And he still some time in office to run up the tab. The last time the deficit exceeded the GDP was at the end of WWII and it took 30 years to get the debt down to 30-35% of GDP. Bear in mind that all the expenses or at least the vast majority of the expenses that ran up the debt disappeared when the war ended. Now we again with a national debt exceeding GDP and the expenses that put the debt there are still accumulating. The economy is not doing well.

Home ownership is at its lowest level in 25 years. If you look at Freddie Mac's rates for July this year the rate was 4.05% with 0.6 points. Go back to July 1990 Freddie Mac was at 10.04 with 2.0 points. In a healthy economy it would be a sellers market. Go ask a realtor or two how they are going.

As to the issue of greed the second richest man in this country after Bill Gates is Warren Buffett. And Warren Buffett has been an ardent supporter of Obama and Obama has taken care of Buffett. Just blocking the Keystone Pipeline had to be worth a billion of two to Buffett. Then we can revisit ACA the only one thatis coming out on that piece of legislation is the insurance industry. In 2014 the wealthy liberal Democrats gave more money to the superpacs than the Republicans got and it is a pretty good bet they would like some return on investment.

This chart track 46 years of wage growth and for the lower quintiles a lack of growth. You will notice the trends for the two lowest quintiles haven't really changed all that much. Before you go off and start about the chart ending two years ago I can tell you that for the lower quintiles the situation has degraded since 2013.You also should note that the rate of change or lack of change is fairly constant regardless of who ran congress or sat in the Whitehouse. However I will point out that the top 5% seem to have done well under Obama at least until you adjust wages

Now when the income is adjusted for inflation nobody is as well off as they were in 2000. You will note the gray vertical bars on the chart. Those show when the economy was in recession. If you follow each quintile you will see that near the end of or shortly after a recession ends wages dip then resume their upward climb. The last recession wages never recovered. In fact in terms of purchasing power only the wealthiest 5% have recovered to pre-recession levels

One last tidbit. This little chart is probably the most succinct and telling. Poverty is definitely on the rise.

Mac you can call it any way you want but both sides of the aisle are responsible for where we are at. Obama was probably the worst person we could have had in the Whitehouse. Dropping something as expensive and pervasive as ACA into a recessionary economy was utter folly. You speak of corporate greed. It seems that health insurance companies aren't immune.

 

[lewispenny]

How about we just go to a flat tax and forget about tax brackets based on income. For an example 25% and everybody pays the same tax % no loopholes, nothing.

You don't even need 25%! A flat tax of 10% would begin to take this country out of the hole that we're in.

 

[lewispenny]

Now the rumor in Washington is that Michelle Obama is thinking about putting her hat in the ring for the DNC. Hillary is looking more each day like a witch and she would not win any election. Michelle would be very interesting and most likely would win the primary. After that anything can happen. Barack, of course, would still be involved and it would just be one step closer to the Obamas' dictatorial reign of the U.S. Many people think it can't happen and we won't find out until it's too late.

 

[MacNfries]

Now the rumor in Washington is that Michelle Obama is thinking about putting her hat in the ring for the DNC.

Just that RUMOR ... wonder WHO started THAT rumor ... hummmm, let me guess, hummmm, Republicans? or maybe Fox News?
Look, this RUMOR crap's got to stop, man. Don't you righties have ANYTHING of substance? Stand up and support your OWN beliefs and quit ridiculing and making fun of the other side? There's the old Chinese proverb that goes "those who demonize others have nothing else to fall back on". That's where the GOP finds itself now ... for 6 years they've spent criticizing/finding fault with Obama, and have accomplished nothing, themselves ... other than being destructive. Isn't it time to say ENOUGH is ENOUGH?

You don't even need 25%! A flat tax of 10% would begin to take this country out of the hole that we're in.

Explain HOW you figure that!
I guess you are supporting Ben Carson for President, then, right? He's calling for a 10% flat tax. When you flatten the taxes that means everyone with tax rates above the flat tax rate would pay less and everyone below the flat tax rate would pay more ... that make sense? Using yours and Carson's own suggested rate, that means 90% of taxpayers would pay MORE, and 10% of taxpayers would pay LESS, now tell me how that is simply not more of the "Trickle Down Economics" that ALL of the Republicans (except Trump) are calling for? You don't strike me as a guy who's earnings ranks among the top 10%ers, so that means YOU would pay MORE, too. And to add insult to injury, the "flat tax supporters" wish to exempt investment income from even being taxed by the flat tax. A lot of the rich already disguise their personal income as investment income to take advantage of the lower investment income tax rate.
If you have a flat tax, like 10-15-20%, that means either the country has to cut more expendatures to offset lost revenue, OR ... they accept adding even more debt ( by excellerating the deficit yet again) to the national debt. Both Ronald Reagan & George W Bush have proven this HANDS DOWN!

Please, before you start your argument FOR the flat tax, or start calling me names, view this video of Ben Carson and Chris Wallace on Fox News regarding his proposed 10% flat tax ... ok?

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/chris-wallace-schools-ben-carson-flat-tax

 

[Alanm]

Just that RUMOR ... wonder WHO started THAT rumor ... hummmm, let me guess, hummmm, Republicans? or maybe Fox News?
Look, this RUMOR crap's got to stop, man. Don't you righties have ANYTHING of substance? Stand up and support your OWN beliefs and quit ridiculing and making fun of the other side? There's the old Chinese proverb that goes "those who demonize others have nothing else to fall back on". That's where the GOP finds itself now ... for 6 years they've spent criticizing/finding fault with Obama, and have accomplished nothing, themselves ... other than being destructive. Isn't it time to say ENOUGH is ENOUGH?


Explain HOW you figure that!
I guess you are supporting Ben Carson for President, then, right? He's calling for a 10% flat tax. When you flatten the taxes that means everyone with tax rates above the flat tax rate would pay less and everyone below the flat tax rate would pay more ... that make sense? Using yours and Carson's own suggested rate, that means 90% of taxpayers would pay MORE, and 10% of taxpayers would pay LESS, now tell me how that is simply not more of the "Trickle Down Economics" that ALL of the Republicans (except Trump) are calling for? You don't strike me as a guy that's earnings ranks you among the top 10%ers, so that means YOU would pay MORE, too. And to add insult to injury, the "flat tax supporters" wish to exempt investment income from even being taxed by the flat tax. A lot of the rich already disguise their personal income as investment income to take advantage of the lower investment income tax rate.
If you have a flat tax, like 10-15-20%, that means either the country has to cut more expendatures to offset lost revenue, OR ... they accept adding even more debt ( by excellerating the deficit yet again) to the national debt. Both Ronald Reagan & George W Bush have proven this HANDS DOWN!

Please, before you start your argument FOR the flat tax, or start calling me names, view this video of Ben Carson and Chris Wallace on Fox News regarding his proposed 10% flat tax ... ok?

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/chris-wallace-schools-ben-carson-flat-tax

Look, it doesnt matter what the tax rate is the problem is it needs to be fair and even for everyone.....no more loopholes, etc. And yes this country needs to cut spending period.

 

[MacNfries]

Look, it doesnt matter what the tax rate is the problem is it needs to be fair and even for everyone.....no more loopholes, etc. And yes this country needs to cut spending period.

Well, Alanm, I can certainly agree, in totality, with your suggestion. Maybe not in the same way you might have meant it, but the words, themselves. If our federal government would remove the loopholes to the tax system, not even having to cut into the Big Three), that alone could save the government over $1.3 trillion ... no more mortgage exemptions, no more business deductions, no more investment exemptions, or corporate welfare, etc ... and THEN, personal & corporate income taxes could possibly be adjusted downward. But, the tax code system has over 7,000+ pages, and, we all know those tax codes weren't written for the lower income in mind. And, we also know a lot of super wealthy and corporations pay little to nothing into taxes, thus requiring everyone, who doesn't have personal, $50,00 per year tax advisors & lawyers, to pay more. There are logical, fair solutions, but the vulture/crony capitalists won't allow it to happen. There's as much fairness in the tax system as there currently is in the legal system for blacks vs whites ... one side has unfair access to help that the other side doesn't.

Eventually, if we don't bring fairness to the system, however, we'll have exactly what we had at the beginning of the Great Depression, a major market & tax adjustment. It wouldn't surprise me that the very wealthy, the billionaires, know this will happen, and/or desire it to happen, have/are preparing for it, and plan to leverage their power to take the most advantage of it when it does happen.

Personally, I would suggest stimulating the economy from the middle (as it is proven to have worked), starting with major investments into our infra-structure. Then, determine what the minimum, living wage necessary for poorest to make it, and build from there. THEN, Republicans & Democrats should sit down and discuss a BUDGET for the nation which would include both "fair" cuts to all expenditures, and increases to revenue. At one time Obama offered a 4:1 entitlement cut to increase taxes, and Republicans (thanks to their leader, Marquist), flatly turned it down. Everyone has to come to the table to give something up. There can be no negotiation when one side bleeds and the other side doesn't.

Here's a chart of the upper/lower tax rates over the past century. Who held the veto pen when these changes took place? Note, particularly, in 1980's when Reagan shifted more tax burden on the poorest, while cutting taxes for the richest, and starting our deficit spending spree that hasn't stopped since Reagan, Bush, & Cheney all agreed "deficits don't matter".



But, it doesn't matter how many charts from the IRS or other true sources I put up, those against taxes (who enjoy the fruits of this country) will disagree as to why a certain level of revenue increase is not fair. And its funny, because records show that when taxes are raised on corporations, the corporations invest back into their businesses to avoid the extra taxes ... thus "creating jobs", totally contrary to the "cut taxes and jobs will be created" believers.

 

[Torpedo]

Now the rumor in Washington is that Michelle Obama is thinking about putting her hat in the ring for the DNC. Hillary is looking more each day like a witch and she would not win any election. Michelle would be very interesting and most likely would win the primary. After that anything can happen. Barack, of course, would still be involved and it would just be one step closer to the Obamas' dictatorial reign of the U.S. Many people think it can't happen and we won't find out until it's too late.

I don't Michelle going very far, given that Obama has endorse Biden

 

[Torpedo]

Well, Alanm, I can certainly agree, in totality, with your suggestion. Maybe not in the same way you might have meant it, but the words, themselves. If our federal government would remove the loopholes to the tax system, not even having to cut into the Big Three), that alone could save the government over $1.3 trillion ... no more mortgage exemptions, no more business deductions, no more investment exemptions, or corporate welfare, etc ... and THEN, personal & corporate income taxes could possibly be adjusted downward. But, the tax code system has over 7,000+ pages, and, we all know those tax codes weren't written for the lower income in mind. And, we also know a lot of super wealthy and corporations pay little to nothing into taxes, thus requiring everyone, who doesn't have personal, $50,00 per year tax advisors & lawyers, to pay more. There are logical, fair solutions, but the vulture/crony capitalists won't allow it to happen. There's as much fairness in the tax system as there currently is in the legal system for blacks vs whites ... one side has unfair access to help that the other side doesn't.

Eventually, if we don't bring fairness to the system, however, we'll have exactly what we had at the beginning of the Great Depression, a major market & tax adjustment. It wouldn't surprise me that the very wealthy, the billionaires, know this will happen, and/or desire it to happen, have/are preparing for it, and plan to leverage their power to take the most advantage of it when it does happen.

Personally, I would suggest stimulating the economy from the middle (as it is proven to have worked), starting with major investments into our infra-structure. Then, determine what the minimum, living wage necessary for poorest to make it, and build from there. THEN, Republicans & Democrats should sit down and discuss a BUDGET for the nation which would include both "fair" cuts to all expenditures, and increases to revenue. At one time Obama offered a 4:1 entitlement cut to increase taxes, and Republicans (thanks to their leader, Marquist), flatly turned it down. Everyone has to come to the table to give something up. There can be no negotiation when one side bleeds and the other side doesn't.

Here's a chart of the upper/lower tax rates over the past century. Who held the veto pen when these changes took place? Note, particularly, in 1980's when Reagan shifted more tax burden on the poorest, while cutting taxes for the richest, and starting our deficit spending spree that hasn't stopped since Reagan, Bush, & Cheney all agreed "deficits don't matter".

View attachment 642710

But, it doesn't matter how many charts from the IRS or other true sources I put up, those against taxes (who enjoy the fruits of this country) will disagree as to why a certain level of revenue increase is not fair. And its funny, because records show that when taxes are raised on corporations, the corporations invest back into their businesses to avoid the extra taxes ... thus "creating jobs", totally contrary to the "cut taxes and jobs will be created" believers.

The best stimulation the government can do is leave the economy to Hell alone.Government does very little positive to promote job growth. As to any "proof" that government involvement has helped economic growth I would say that economic growth has occurred despite government interference. If you want jobs it needs to be easy to start and run a business. Today there is is a myriad of rules and regulations that have to be dealt with and often the penalties are severe for failing to comply. The company I retired from had a whole department that dealt with nothing other than making sure the company was in compliance with whatever rules they fell under.

As to the history of government meddling with the economy there is pretty good evidence that Roosevelt's meddling actually lengthened the Great Depression, one fact that can't be disputed was that in December 1941 when the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor the unemployment rate in this country was about 16%. As to the Fed's current policy of QE there really isn't anything evidence that it has had a positive effect on the economy other than pushing the stock market artificially high. In case you haven't noticed there is a bit of a correction under way. Main stream media is blaming the whole mess on the Chinese and it did play a role, but most of what is happening is self inflicted.

You go on about the Republicans and their "Debt don't matter" philosophy. I am a bit curious Mac how you would categorize the current administrations handling of the debt. As I recall it was around 10 trillion dollars in the middle of 2008 and now it is more that 18 trillion dollars. This is by far the large increase in the national debt in peacetime time since this country was founded.

All a minimum wage law is is a band aid for sick economy. The majority of new jobs (60%) have traditionally come from small business. Last year more small businesses closed their doors than started. For starters small business needs to be exempted from Federal regulation. The states can handle that the best way they want to. If the Federal government wants to do anything meaningful it would be to give tax credits to small businesses that create new jobs. For instance a 20% tax credit on any wages paid for new jobs and the credit would apply to wages only the wages greater than say $11.00 an hour. Give business a financial incentive to pay for employee education. There should be an effort to get people off of disability and back into the work *******. Most people can do something if they are properly trained. It's a lot cheaper to pay for some education than it is to pay disability for the balance of a person's life.

 

[MacNfries]

The best stimulation the government can do is leave the economy to Hell alone..

Well I believe it was President Reagan that appointed Alan Greenspan to the Fed. Reserve, and George Bush that appointed his replacement, Ben Bernake. Those would be good places to start with those 'stimulations' you talk about.

You go on about the Republicans and their "Debt don't matter" philosophy. I am a bit curious Mac how you would categorize the current administrations handling of the debt. As I recall it was around 10 trillion dollars in the middle of 2008 and now it is more that 18 trillion dollars.

You still refuse to "get it" ... for ONE I repeated Cheney saying "deficits don't matter" , READ what I said or buy some glasses. The deficit spending started with REAGAN ... should I use all capital letters so you can read without assumption or fabricating my comment?
Second, when the throttle to the US economy was handed over from Bush to Obama the aircraft was in a straight nose dive to the ground; had the Republicans won the POTUS, the US would most definitely have gone into another Great Depression.

• 2 unfunded wars
• 2 unfunded tax cuts
• Wall Street collapse & banking collapse (remember Lehman Bros.)
• Auto Industry collapse
• TARP bailout
• 800,000 jobs being lost each month in the last year
• Subprime mortgage collapse

You can argue until the cows come home, TORP, but Obama took control of a crashing economy. A lot of jobs were saved and the job trend REVERSED shortly after he took office. I'll not provide you any further graphs or pics because you're too stubborn to accept what you see. The US would have pulled out of this recession a lot earlier if Republicans had not been obstructing his every move ... 317 Republican filibusters? More than ALL the other filibusters of ALL the other Presidents added together? The ONLY thing Republicans accomplished in the past 6 years is managing to damage the US credit rating.
Now, as we approach the next election, Republicans have NOTHING that they can say they have accomplished because they've spent their entire productive time being NON-PRODUCTIVE.
I'm going to post these last sentences in BOLD so you'll quit dodging around them:
My issue with the Republicans is that they've built their platform around Supply-Side Economics which has decimated the middle-class and flattened wages. ALL of the GOP candidates want to cut taxes AGAIN, except Trump ... ALL OF THEM.
Except they don't call it Supply Side ... they now call it "shrinking government", or "getting government out of the way", or as Ben Carson now calls it "tithing at 10%" ... a flat tax is nothing more than a tax cut for the rich, AGAIN, at the expense of the poor. A flat tax of 10% benefits everyone above 10% and penalizes everyone below 10%. It takes a bonehead not to see that. It takes money OUT of the pockets of those who would need and spend it on things like household goods, cars, homes, food, etc etc. which would stimulate the economy back into productivity and creating ... wait for it ... here it comes .... JOBS! (GASP)
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/05/terrana-whos-blame-when-nothing-trickles-down

For Sale ... Mounts To Wall With No Adhesive
........

 

[Torpedo]

You still refuse to "get it" ... for ONE I repeated Cheney saying "deficits don't matter" , READ what I said or buy some glasses. The deficit spending started with REAGAN ... should I use all capital letters so you can read without assumption or fabricating my comment?
Second, when the throttle to the US economy was handed over from Bush to Obama the aircraft was in a straight nose dive to the ground; had the Republicans won the POTUS, the US would most definitely have gone into another Great Depression.

• 2 unfunded wars
• 2 unfunded tax cuts
• Wall Street collapse & banking collapse (remember Lehman Bros.)
• Auto Industry collapse
• TARP bailout
• 800,000 jobs being lost each month in the last year
• Subprime mortgage collapse

And exactly where has the economy gone in the last 6 years. You talk about job creation. Obama and the Federal government have very little to do with that other than throw a wrench or two in the works. If you care to look at the larger picture a lot of higher paying jobs are lost each month and most of the new jobs are lower paying. How about the national debt going from 10 to 18 plus trillion dollars since Obama took office. I would be interested to see how you figure that is going to get paid off.