WSB Forum » Politics

(162 posts)

"Untaxed Wealth Creates Jobs" (and other fairy tales)


  1. Can the Conservatives on this site please 'splain me something? Can you 'splain me why rich folks aren't creating more jobs with their money? Remember: The theory was that if the wealthy kept more of their money by not being taxed, they'd create jobs.

    So where are they? Where are all the jobs the untaxed rich were supposed to create?

    Smitty says (paraphrase): You can't expect corporations to invest money in a weak economy.

    Others say: You don't just create jobs to be creating jobs. That doesn't make sense economically. You have to produce something that consumers WANT.

    OK. I'll buy that. I'll buy those arguments. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say "Don't tax us; let us keep ALL our money so we can create jobs." — and then not follow through and create the jobs. There's just something wrong with that equation.

    Personally, I get the feeling that rich people really ARE creating jobs. Plenty of them, in fact. They're just not creating them here. Instead, they're creating them in places like India, China, Mexico. Places where they'll get the biggest return on their investment. Because, like they say: That's what makes the most sense economically.

    And why not? Building factories in India is what I'd be doing too. If I were rich.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  2. You know who's creating jobs here?

    Hammerhead, with her cleaning business.

    And unlike the hoi polloi, she didn't just promise to create jobs, she actually did create them, by hiring local people, including even a couple of folks from Nickelsville. Yay!

    Where's Hammerhead's bailout?

    In fact, Hammerhead never asked for or needed one. But I'll tell you this . . . I'd give her a million bucks of taxpayer money before I'd give another goddam dime to some wealthy invester or fat-cat CEO. I wouldn't even care if she took a hundred grand right off the top and went to live in Tahiti – as long as she actually created some jobs here before she left.

    God knows, it'd be a helluva lot more than the fat cats ever did for us, for all their millions in bonuses and tax breaks.

    **************************************************************************************

    Also rockin' the job market: Full Tilt.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  3. 365Stairs
    Member Profile

    365Stairs

    Lots of personal assistants...who themselves...have personal assistants...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  4. 1) They are concerned about the costs of Obamacare and increased regulation. Lots of uncertainty in both big ans small biz communities.

    2) How do you know they haven't created jobs? As Obama likes to say "saved or created"! It might have been much worse.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  5. This Country needs more Bob Moores

    The Wiki article only mentions that he sold the Company to his employees.

    I remember seeing, I believe on Evening Magazine, a story about Mr. Moore's turning the Company over to his employees.

    As I recall, he was being courted by some pretty big food conglomerates. Most likely Kraft and Nabisco.

    Instead, he chose to keep his Company "small", and in selling it to the employees that had shown him the same level of loyalty to him, that he had shown them, it would likely keep a philosophy of continuing to put out quality products, instead of cutting back on quality only to save a penny or two, and for the Employees/new owners to be able to stand behind those products with pride, and not be put under the stress of working for a faceless mega-corp, that puts profits before people (both Employees and Customers).

    Mike

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  6. Bostonman
    Member Profile

    I don't think your question has one answer DP. Its really two parts, the first is what jobs would be lost of people were taxes more thus getting into the creation versus saved jobs arguement. The second part is at what point will people use money to create additional jobs. That is really a big variable. It depends on certainty or uncertainty of regulation, tax changes, how the individual is invested (ie risk) and if the demand if there for them to hire a new person.

    Yes, I said demand. While I support lower taxes and less spending I also recognize that more money alone will not create jobs. If I made another $100k a year the most I might do is hire a housekeeper or something.

    The biggest issue with raising taxes right now is that people just don't trust government to act responsibly. They don't trust government to manage money, there is just to much waste in the system. Why should I pay more when congressman and senators get such amazing benefits? I say they should cut those benefits so we don't have to pay more.

    I also don't like the fact that I pay about 22% on my average tax rates after deductions and people making more than me pay a little less and people making less than me pay nothing. By default I am the one getting screwed the highest because I am middle class.

    Disagree or not with my opinion I think your statement DP has truth to it. Not all conservatives believe in what you say. I just think the system needs to get fixed before you mess with tax code.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  7. Here's the problem I see with demand. If a large percentage of people are unemployed and a larger percentage of people have had to take jobs that pay less than they used to make and even a larger percentage are paying out a whole lot more out in bills because everything costs more... how in the world will demand be created? Like Bostonman says, If I have $100K more a year I can afford to hire a housekeeper. But I have so much less than that... even less than I had last year.

    If there's no demand and the job "creators" don't create jobs with all the money they have stashed away for a risk-free environment, then it seems the country continues to downward spiral into an economic abyss.

    Please enlighten me... How do you create demand in such an era? I'm open to hearing creative thoughts.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  8. Bostonman
    Member Profile

    Well TDe creating demand will be driven by what happens on not just a national level but on a global level. In fact its more globally dependent than ever before. Small companies will create a small amount of jobs but a company like Amazon or Dell won't hire until foreign demand is needed.

    Either than or someone will create a new service or product (facebook for example) and they will hire people. Perhaps alternative energy is the next big source of jobs. It won't be manufacturing though.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  9. Smitty...that's an excuse only. Try an explanation without inserting "Obama" and "Obamacare" into it. You sound like a repeat of what's said on Faux News...soundbites...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  10. oddreality
    Member Profile

    A conservative that seems to be coming around...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/david-frum-paul-krugman-right-2011-10

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  11. skeeter
    Member Profile

    While its true that many manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, the U.S. is still a manufacturing powerhouse. The U.S. manufactures more goods (as measured by dollars) than any other country in the world. China is #2 and Japan is #3. Though China will most likely surpass the U.S. in the next few years. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm

    If you think about it - it's quite amazing. A country of 300 million people (U.S.) manufactures more than a country of over a billion people (China.) All this even though it costs more than 10 times as much to employ a person in the U.S. as it does in China.

    To the extent the economy booms and more manufactured goods are produced, that means more jobs in all manufacturing companies - U.S. included.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  12. 365Stairs
    Member Profile

    365Stairs

    Even if an increased demand is there...going forward...all organizations will still be very careful in hiring FT with benefits...PT will be huge wave...It will all depend on how lean or how much redundancy any size company will want to run at.

    Jobs that require an immediate backup person or two to step in for sick / planned vacations means more jobs...

    Small business back up is typically the owner and they forget to factor their pay a lot of the time.

    I would hate it if there was a large dependence on the tech / internet business industry again...Facebook, Twitter, Google are all anomolies and their value vs. actual growth may be overstated long term. I say this even with close to a billion users and counting on FB...which will require infrasture / jobs...but where is the revenue to support this user base?

    Its all about Ad $ on the internet...

    I've said this before...gone are the traditional 15-30% net margins for sustainability...you will have to survive on 10-20% expectations and most likely less. Some products will beat this of course...but the cost of all production equipment alone will make labor factor a close consideration.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  13. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Another Jan "ism" ask a question, get a reasoned response and then attack the message or messenger. Why ask Jan? How is taxing going to create jobs? Taxing our way to prosperity? That woud be a first. Just consider this for a moment.. is there a worse investment than our federal government? You wonder why your bandwagon is so empty? Because even the middle class has come to the realization that government pisses money away like a drunken sailor. Worse, it creates programs and instituions that never go away. They endure forever with a never ending and growing demand for more taxes. We don't trust government. Investments today is strictly try and preserve the integrity of the accumulated capital. Yes, Obamacare IS a drag on the confidence of business. Do read the news.. the numbers were fudged, FINALLY HHS fesses up and says it is not sustainable and drops the CLASS portion of Obamacare. Slice and dice it as you wish, we were deceived intentionally. And where did this creation come from? Vote buying. CLASS would have created an entirely new class of unionized caregivers...hundreds of thousands of them. This was crafted by and for big labor. So far Obamacare has been fudged numbers, gimmick assumptions, and the more ya see the less ya like. Crafted in secret, behind closed doors...it begs mistrust and suspicion. You want businesses to create new jobs, hire, with this level of mistrust? So far the only "stimulus" has been for unionized government workers and unionized industry. There is no trust of wise, efficient, or effective use of tax resources. Business is going to hold it until it can invest it with some risk and some upside. I'd rather give a crackhead $100 to hold for me then $100 to the government, who will use it to create programs that will cost me $100 over and over again in perpetual cycles... and over 1/3 of that will be to pay off the debt for the overextended deficits incurred. Nope... just keep it where it is..safe from confiscation and value degradation. It's a trust thing.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  14. Regardless of what you call it (I watch MSNBC believe it or not) healthcare reform is what is keeping big and small businesses from hiring. Lots of uncertainty and fear of sky-rocketing costs. Mark my words, if it becomes evident that Romney will win (by say October) you will see a drastic shift in hiring. It's very much like when it became clear that Obama was going to beat McCain (in October) that the massive layoffs began.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  15. I run a small business. I've hired 3 new people this last year. The only reason I'm not hiring more is economics... not Health Care. When the business grows enough to support another worker, I'll hire them.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  16. oddreality
    Member Profile

    99% are pissed about this too.So many things gone wrong.So many fairy tales.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/reagan-and-revenues/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto#

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  17. kootchman
    Member Profile

    That maybe true TDe.. but are you strapping on 10K plus per worker? Service workers are easy to hire and easy to lay off. Generally manufacturing requires two investments. The machines and equipment, and the people to run them. While you can lay off service and knowledge workers, the capital costs of that equipment are not variable costs, they are fixed. And as you well know, firms with over 50 employees are required to pay the costs of their employees and a good portion of yours too. Your business will be subsidized by other businesses who are larger. even the smallest firms, the tax credits "disappear" after 2 years as the "exchanges" kick in and (ha ha ha) costs are lowered. So far health care costs have exceeded the most optimistic projections. To be "fully" insured under the mandate, after 2014 small businesses will have the diferences made up by others. There is no upper limit to that cost...no defined cost structures to budget.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  18. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Oh yea Krugman and the NY Times..with contributions from Rachal Maddow and Keith Obermann... now that is a true and unbiased data source. What exactly is "real revenue" as defined by Krugman? For now.. lower dollar values..up go prices. Food is up 15%...and gas will be around $3.50 gallon around election time with no appreciable demand bump. As Messer Obama and Geitner are about the business of trying to inject inflationary price pressures by quantitative easing a review of the effect is sobering. Inflation is his last option to raise revenue. I would prefer government cuts, and so would you.

    "Since taxes are assessed on nominal incomes and tax indexing didn’t start until 1985, the sharp fall of inflation shrank the tax base and increased the tax cut’s revenue loss." Demand and growth, both accompanied RR tax cuts. Just what we need now.

    Wringing out the juice of the Jimmy Carter inflationary spiral was far more impactful than the RR tax cuts. You also neglect to add that Clinton kicked half the welfare recipients off the tax roles. That was no small measure the reason for his "almost" balanced budget"... there was no surplus either. We were still eyeballs deep in debt, we stopped digging for a two year period.

    For those who oppose a flat tax or VAT

    The average federal income tax rate on a median family is less than 5 percent and its marginal rate is 15 percent. Inflation is nonexistent and the federal funds rate is close to zero.

    Reagan Years

    "The average federal income tax rate on a four-person family with the median income had risen from 7 percent in 1965 to 11 percent in 1978, and the marginal tax rate – the tax on each additional dollar earned – rose from 17 percent to 25 percent."

    It ain't just the rich... that are riding historically low tax rates. From 17% to 5% is a pretty hefty tax cut. It just so happens that a flat tax of 20%....and a limit of spending of 17% of GDP would bring us to a balanced budget in 10 years. Ya have to broaden the tax base. Class warfare ain't being bought, no matter how hard The Messiah wants to sell it.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  19. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    to smitty:

    Regardless of what you call it healthcare reform is what is keeping big and small businesses from hiring.

    really, now?

    at 1/6 of the country's GDP, what is an unregulated for-profit health insurance industry costing business?

    to the bigger topic, no matter how you slice it, wall street and "industrial capitalists" have no frigging interest in creating jobs.

    their sole purpose is to make money. period. end of argument. and hiring human beings who demand living wages and/or benefits is contrary to cost-cutting and profit-taking. as such, their money is better spent in attacking government regulations, taxation, labor laws, and collective bargaining with vast sums of money, lobbyists, lawyers, and big-media PR blitzes.

    conversely, regulations and taxes are the very tools that we, the people, are trying to use to make a better society.

    why don't republicans, conservatives, "independents," teabaggers, and libertarians ever admit this to themselves - or anyone else? are you ashamed of carrying water for people who don't care if you live or die?

    but a better question is, "why do you do it?"

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  20. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    kootch: volcker raised interest rates to quell inflation due to the cost of the war that you served in to stave off a massive meltdown in the economy.

    it could have been a lot worse.

    and it had nothing to do with social engineering.

    and i hate to break it to you, but - when accounting for inflation - wages have flattened for us in the past 30 years while the slice of the pie for the top 2% has gotten wider and deeper. low taxes haven't bought me a damned thing - except a broken country that doesn't make its own tee vees and a lot of red ink.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  21. off topic a bit, but...I sit here reading Kman trashing Krugman...nay, making fun of him...and wonder, Kman...where the hell is your Nobel Prize? where the hell is your professorship at Princeton? I'm thinking that there are people who know more than you, although I'm sure you don't think so. Yet, you'll put a Herman Cain sticker on your car? Seriously? Oh, yeah...he ran a business...crappy pizza..catered to..the masses? Yes, that's success of a different kind. But is he qualified to put his hand on the nuclear button at 3am? Uz.beki..beki..beki..stan? Seriously? And he says that we lack a sense of humor? There is nothing funny about the state of our economy...or the fact that he wants to run this country, yet doesn't know the basics, and hasn't even run for dogcatcher...

    yep...cranky tonight... I'm sure you'll have a sarcastic remark, though...give it your best shot..

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  22. JanS
    If kootch makes you cranky just scroll past him. I do ;-/

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  23. Krugman supports Obama economic policies. They have not worked. Harry Reid just said the private sector was OK but the Public Job creation was horrible. (Since 2007 6.3 million private sector jobs lost compared to 392,000 Public Jobs lost). We have lost 2 Million jobs since then. Yes, more Public Union jobs lost means less money from dues feeding the money laundering of the Democratic Party. Talk about a scam. That is why Public Unions are evil. Anyway, Stimulus was supposed to create jobs, infrastructure etc. Some created (many union) but mostly ineffective. Unemployment rocketed past 8% after you know who promised it would not. Omnibus spending bill did not help economy either. EPA regulations intrusive and at one point Yellowstone National Park would have been in violation of Federal Air Standards (but the press was bad enough so Obama had them pull that away).

    Government take over of businesses. Attacking the Chamber of Commerce, Backing Alternative Energy companies whose time in the market has not come. Ever hear of Solyndra? Excuse the spelling. How many millions wasted on the poster child of alternative energy? Obamacare on the horizon while private insurance companies raise health care premiums when we were promised they would go down. Giving favorable companies and Unions exemptions but going after other companies that don't agree. Calling people who work hard Fat Cats and other names, while catering to Wall Street for donations (and not letting in the press when the wealthy are lavishly paying to meet El Presidente!) And Biden. Fact checked as a failure on the recent rape and crime allegations if we don't pass the new jobs bill. I hope Obama stays healthy because we do not need a nut like Biden running the country.

    Mr. Obama and Mr. Krugman's arguments are baseless because the President's policies are not driving the economic engine, but cooling it. He is the anti business, pro labor, pro crony, rookie prez who has no answers. He was not qualified to be President and it shows. He supports Occupy Wall Street but takes the fools in Wall Streets donations (behind closed doors). Mr. Community Organizer is a narcissist and a socialist. That is why business is not hiring. Why should they?

    No, businesses are hiring in spite of the President.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  24. JanS, although we disagree in many areas I do hope to see you on the 6th. I am the Fat Cat smoking a cigar. Not really. White hair, glasses. Northern European looks and too many pizzas over the years. Thanks for your contributions.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  25. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    rich: define "socialist."

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  26. metrognome
    Member Profile

    redblack -- anyone who's not a billionaire.

    HMC Rich -- funny how you blame so much on Obama who's been in office less than three years and give a free pass to Dubya who had eight years to screw this country (incl signing the first stimulus bill ...). You mention Solandrya ... how about wasted billions for no-bid contracts to Blackwater and Haliburton for the Middle East and any number of Republican-owned companies for Katrina clean-up (heck of a job, Brown Nose!!) How about all the CofC-sponsored attack ads on anything or anyone who was perceived as 'non-business'. How about the Republican-controlled for-profit insurance companies jacking up their rates just to make Obamacare look bad. How about all the Republican-controlled corporations who refuse to spend their more than adequate cash reserves to hire needed employees in the hopes that the high unemployment rate will keep Obama from a second term.

    And, just for fun, how about Richard Millstone Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew ... what a pair of crooks.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  27. @rb

    "their sole purpose is to make money. period. end of argument. and hiring human beings who demand living wages and/or benefits is contrary to cost-cutting and profit-taking. as such, their money is better spent in attacking government regulations, taxation, labor laws, and collective bargaining with vast sums of money, lobbyists, lawyers, and big-media PR blitzes."

    So is this just a recent phenomenon over the last four years? Big and small business hired millions b/t 2001 and 2007. NOW they are greedy? Are you saying this will never change unless we force them to hire via regulation? How will that work? Why did they hire before?

    (how to you copy and paste someone's post like you did mine?)

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  28. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Go back in the time machine, Congressman would openly trade trade railroad stocks on the House and Senate floor. See the Credit Mobilier scandals. RR stocks manipulations, graft, bribe, gave rise to the "Wall Street" scandals of the era and enter the age of the Great Robber Barons and the eventual rise of the 17th amendment. Who could forget the Keating 5? The great S&L scam. Well, at least it was bi-partisan! See both sides of aisle can co=operate after all! 4 Democrats and1 Republican. It was shocking .. but we so used to hearing one campaign bundler after another is getting TARP, stimulus, loan garuntees we aren't even fazed.. and this administration is so over the top he makes the K5 club look like litttle Mouskateers. Small example George Kaiser/Solyndra. Remember Bobby Baker?

    You want to tax more to send to these guys? It's not the uber wealthy that are corrupting... it's the uber wealthy paying off the corrupt, who promptly reciprocate. Until liberals recognize, not as a side bar, but the heart of the issue, this corruption is only possible with the active participation of the executive and legislative branches. They are out soliciting bribes..Bellaggio 32K per plate fund raiser? I saw stimulus one go directly to political payoffs.. keep the wealth on the sidelines...it does less damage then in the hands of the federal government.

    You will either concede a flat tax, a VAT, or we will merrily continue down the same path. More money to the federal machine means more mouths to feed in perpetual cycles of increased taxes. And not needy mouths either... no, the funds never get to that level. Too much is skimmed off the top.

    If you as a citizen can't read or understand your tax code, how are you supposed to provide intelligent citizen oversight? Just hand the job over to Jim McDermott? How;s that working for ya?

    Stop bleating for more waste, fraud, and abuse. We have a spending problem. That is why we have 16 trillion in deficits. Did Solyndra help ya?

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  29. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Hey Jan.... they also gave The Messiah the Nobel Peace prize? Kinda ironic isn't it? Britain too was plagued to by the "Oxford" elitism and liberalism... academics who teach and preach social and economic iberalism from the Ivy League. Took the iron lady to undo years of labor party pandering and restore the pound sterling.. which at the moment is the the strongest currency in the EU..instead of piling on more an more debt..they went into austerity budgeting....while we? we pile on more... while Sarkozy is begging them to bail out french banks, buy socialist debt bonds from Greece, Spain, Itlay..... why are you so awed by them? Why I think I will trot out Milton Friedman... Noble Prize winner, Univ of Chicago Professor... you can have another alter to bow down to. "Plugman" is an idealogue, never let reality get in the way of a good social agenda.. and if Obama is the Nobel Peace Prize laureate...oh god help us... kind gives ya clue that the Nobel selection process is a bit tilted towards socialism... it is after all, Sweden. The prize in Physics goes to the first person who finds a "socialist" meaning in supersymetry

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  30. kootchman
    Member Profile

    At least Blackwater and Haliburton made profits and paid dividends..and have out jobs. eh? (cynical observation) We got some of it back. Let's see GM do the same...or our newest investment, building electric cars in Finland. This is good metrgnome... so the next Republican President can spend 4 years blaming Obama? That's our national plan for recovery? Seems to be. You do note that France has scrapped mandatory hiring, it failed, the mandatory 36 hour work week, it failed, no layoff policy, it failed.. and France has lived with unemployment in excess of 8 per cent for decades... there are no republicans in the Dubya rah rah rah corner that I know...it was painful... but you can do it too... Obama is an empty suit. Admit it and the pain will go away.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  31. you just crack me up...defending Haliburton and Blackwater..and pretending like 2000-2008 didn't happen...

    spending problem? how about a revenue problem...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  32. kootchman
    Member Profile

    I said cynical observation. No I have not ignored the eight years. In no post will you find my approval of Dubya or his spending. You keep saying I ignored the years... but you do that a lot... if ya keep saying it, maybe the facts will change? Blaming Bush does not make Obama better..and it doesn't deflect the blame for the incompetence of his presidency. Only in Seattle would we hear,... I spend more than make by 40 per cent, my credit rating is falling, I need to charge more to get out of this. Cut spending.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  33. timeslid
    Member Profile

    timeslid

    I suspect that much of this discussion and for that matter previous ones are blown out by "paid bloggers who feed on partisan cash".

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/23/true-stories-of-bloggers-who-secretly-feed-on-partisan-cash/

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  34. Kman...I say increase revenue..and CHANGE spending...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  35. Kootch...
    You do realize that haliburton and blackwater made those profits by ripping you ..the America taxpayer ..off..don't you?

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  36. Sorry to keep posting this, but between 200-2008 it was NOT a revenue problem.

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  37. Smitty ..
    The numbers on that chart are too tiny for me to analyze on my smart phone but did your assessment of those figures account for the fact that the cost for the war in Iraq simply wasn't accounted for until Obama insisted it needed to be included or that the tab for the bailout W ordered hadn't hit the books yet either?

    Use your common sense. If expenses go up and you give a tax cut to the top income earners .. you have a revenue problem even if you defer putting theexpenses

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  38. Jan mentioned it was a revenue problem. It wasn't. Revenues increased. It was (as you suggest) a spending problem.

    Tax revenues INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts.

    That's the only point I was making as conventional wisdom is that federal tax revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  39. metrognome
    Member Profile

    kootchman -- no, the next Republican president in 20 years can continue to blame Bush and to thank Obama and the two subsequent two-term Democratic presidents for all their work in repairing the damage.

    If you think Shrubya doesn't deserve the blame, starting with the day his term ended, then he doesn't deserve any credit for anything you may think he did right.

    Where is Bush, by the way. He spent his National Guard tour flying a barstool in Bama; he spent his presidency pretending he was a common man who preferred to clear bruuush on his 'ranch' ... wonder what he's pretending to do now???

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  40. Smitty
    After the cuts and before the crash fed tax revenues did increase but not nearly equal to the increase in the transfer of wealth to the top 1%

    Nor did they increase at the rate of spending ...spending that was directly fueling the increased income distribution.

    What a thorny mess.

    The question is..did the foxes in the hen house really expect profiteers to police themselves and were they really stupid enough to believe their own accounting misdirection or were they actually trying to create the collapse they engineered.

    You decide for yourself ...
    but I am betting I give them more credit than you.
    I read their think tank papers that laid this all out decades ago.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  41. Smitty
    After the cuts and before the crash fed tax revenues did increase but not nearly equal to the increase in the transfer of wealth to the top 1%

    Nor did they increase at the rate of spending ...spending that was directly fueling the increased income distribution.

    What a thorny mess.

    The question is..did the foxes in the hen house really expect profiteers to police themselves and were they really stupid enough to believe their own accounting misdirection or were they actually trying to create the collapse they engineered.

    You decide for yourself ...
    but I am betting I give them more credit than you.
    I read their think tank papers that laid this all out decades ago.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  42. "After the cuts and before the crash fed tax revenues did increase"

    Thank you. That's all I was trying to point out.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  43. Smitty,
    Yes, revenues did temporarily increase, but that fact does not support your claim that we don't/didn't have a revenue problem because revenue did not increase enough to offset unreported spending.

    We generate revenue now...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  44. Betty T
    Member Profile

    JoB
    Would you be available to drive me Saturday to take lunch to Nickelsville? Don't know how else to contact you. I've lost my driver and can't ask Ellen as would be too much with her daughter and grandson coming to Trick-or-Treat at the junction.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  45. kootchman
    Member Profile

    metrognome...sure he will. He will repair the economy.. keep chanting it. Do you have any idea when he is going to start? We are all waiting, and waiting. Well, a tacit agreement Smitty..well done. Now how did that transfer of wealth affect the overspending? I don't get the relationship. Dubya was out drinking with his pot smoking buddy Willy Clinton? Or the hundreds of thousands of our current leadership who took deferments. He was a qualified "Thud" pilot in an Air National Guard Unit... you sound like a "birther"... And again, that is relevant to the issues at hand how? You are reaching deep up a dark place for that one.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  46. wow...like Obama has a magic wand, and the Repubs in the house and senate are cooperating with him - LOLOLOLOL.....

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  47. kootchman
    Member Profile

    OK Jan.. the first two years when he had an absolute majority.. both houses of congress? He did so badly he lost one in mid terms... and the Senate ain't playing any longer.. with his own party giving him the bird. The mid terms were a referendum .. to stop him dead in his tracks. Now a smarter man would get the hint... but not him..now we are getting lectures about our drive, our will, our rah rah spirit... sounds like the 'Malaise" speech... is he running out of people to blame? He got his first stimulus package... which he said would get us under 8% ... and unemployment rocketed to 91/2... any more cooperation and we would be at 12 per cent...

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  48. Kootchman
    Obama's biggest mistake was believing that the Republicans were more interested in the national welfare than they were in defeating him.
    With any luck he has finally figured that one out.

    Posted 7 months ago #         
  49. Betty
    Kevin will call you today.
    He thinks he can help

    Posted 7 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^