Hey, it could be worse. McCain could have won the election and we'd all be selling apples on the street corner, 'cause we all know that economics was not his strong suit.


I honsetly cannot believe that the Republicans have been able to get anyone to buy into that crap about how the Bush tax cuts created jobs. Talk about drinking the kool-aid...

stlouiedipalma;445983 wrote:Hey, it could be worse. McCain could have won the election and we'd all be selling apples on the street corner, 'cause we all know that economics was not his strong suit.

Apparently BHO's a genius at economics?

stlouiedipalma;445983 wrote:I honsetly cannot believe that the Republicans have been able to get anyone to buy into that crap about how the Bush tax cuts created jobs. Talk about drinking the kool-aid...

Average unemployment rate under "W" = 5.2%. Average so far under the Anointed Economic Genius = 9.4%. Granted the Genius has only been at it for 2 years and it's all Bush's fault.

believer,

Show me some concrete evidence that cutting taxes for the top 2% created jobs. Citing the unemployment rate is fine and all, but show me what caused it to be 5.2% under Bush and 9.4% under Obama.

stlouiedipalma;446109 wrote:believer,

Show me some concrete evidence that cutting taxes for the top 2% created jobs. Citing the unemployment rate is fine and all, but show me what caused it to be 5.2% under Bush and 9.4% under Obama.

Bob Rubin (former treasury secretary) was actually on the Sunday shows essentially making fun of those predicting economic doom if taxes go up on the wealthy by bragging that when Clinton raised taxes to 39.6% it created 22 million jobs, and that when Bush cut taxes it produced like a million jobs (those are aggregate totals) over the course of their respective presidencies.

You want him to provide specifics (i.e. planning) that companies created jobs when you know perfectly well any such planning would be done in private and not have a public record. Companies don't publicly post minutes of these types of meetings. Talk about a silly request that proves NOTHING and is only done to provide you with, "nah nah nah, see you can't prove it" fodder.

On the other hand, people who truly understand economics realize that when people are allowed to save money, they tend to put it into investments and other places where the money gets used for things like small business startups and other job creation activities.

From Lawrence Kudlow:

The great flaw in the thinking of the Democrats is that they are ignorant of the economic power of saving and investment. Saving is a good thing. Stocks, bonds, bank deposits, money-market funds, commercial paper, venture capital, private equity, real estate partnerships -- all that saving is channeled into business investment. And whether that capital goes into new start-ups or small businesses or large firms, it finances the kind of new investment in plants and equipment and software and buildings that ultimately creates jobs and family incomes. And that, in turn, spurs consumption.

But pulling out just one dollar from the private sector and rechanneling it through the government as a transfer to someone else creates nothing. At best it’s a safety net. At worst it may damage private-business activity and actually reduce employment.

Link: http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2010/08/washington-war-on-investment.html

This is why higher taxes on those who already pay the most income tax is a negative and a huge drag on the economy.

A better comparison (since we all know the housing bubble burst, much precipitated by irresponsible lending via Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac was the primary bullet that brought down the economy) would be to look at JOB CREATION under Bush as compared to Obama. The policies (direction) administration's are going either gives confidence to the business sector or causes it to put everything on hold. Right now, the atmosphere of anti-business actions by Obama & company have everything locked up and not moving.

Comparing job growth when Clinton was president with anyone is an exercise in foolishness. Especially in his second term. He was fortunate to be there when the Internet business boom occurred; a once in a lifetime type of business explosion. All he had to do was be smart enough to get out of the way, which he did. Of course, he also put out an order to rev up lending under the Community Reinvestment Act to those folks not really qualified to get home loans, which is the foundation for the housing collapse we saw later under Bush and into Obama.

Writerbuckeye;446137 wrote:Comparing job growth when Clinton was president with anyone is an exercise in foolishness. Especially in his second term. He was fortunate to be there when the Internet business boom occurred; a once in a lifetime type of business explosion. All he had to do was be smart enough to get out of the way, which he did. Of course, he also put out an order to rev up lending under the Community Reinvestment Act to those folks not really qualified to get home loans, which is the foundation for the housing collapse we saw later under Bush and into Obama.

This. To imply that raising taxes created 22 million jobs is probably the stupidest thing I'll read this week.

Writerbuckeye;446137 wrote:Comparing job growth when Clinton was president with anyone is an exercise in foolishness. Especially in his second term. He was fortunate to be there when the Internet business boom occurred; a once in a lifetime type of business explosion. All he had to do was be smart enough to get out of the way, which he did. Of course, he also put out an order to rev up lending under the Community Reinvestment Act to those folks not really qualified to get home loans, which is the foundation for the housing collapse we saw later under Bush and into Obama.

This. I don't think BHO is smart enough to get out of the way...unless, of course, he's playing a round of golf or two or sending his wife on Air Force Two for a Spanish vacation.

HitsRus;444457 wrote:By US congressional district, the cost of the expiration to an average family in the district.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26581.html

$1300-$1500 to the average Ohio family.
Can any one say "I'll have a double dip recession please?"
No wonder investors are a bit jittery. Hiring is flat and consumer spending (which drives about 70% of the economy) is about to take a hit.

FWIW I think we should extend the cuts for everyone, even the top 2% until the recession is over and employment picks up. But, I'm BoatShoes the marxist/socialist liberal I'm ok with neo-keynesian policies to stimulate the economy when there's a lack of effective demand. Conservatives aren't supposed to be...but instead of being the party of balanced budgets....the republican party is now the party of keynesianism through tax cuts because America at its core is keynesian because a good job is our only safety net...we can't just ride it out on socialism until the market comes along.

But I noticed you didn't post what extending the bush era tax cuts for everyone would do to the deficit....

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID27052/images/deficit-graph-4-7-10(1).jpg

For as mad as conservatives are about what Obamacare and the Porkulus package will do to our deficits, they should be screaming bloody murder about what extending the bush tax cuts will do to them...but alas, the narrative continues....bankrupting the country is fine as long as its done through tax cuts.

BoatShoes;447605 wrote:For as mad as conservatives are about what Obamacare and the Porkulus package will do to our deficits, they should be screaming bloody murder about what extending the bush tax cuts will do to them...but alas, the narrative continues....bankrupting the country is fine as long as its done through tax cuts.

You think allowing the tax cuts to expire is responsible fiscal policy? Fine. When the socialists in DC who are calling the shots tell me that there will also be massive budget cuts across-the-board as a matter of responsible fiscal policy, I'll be the first conservative on Ohio Chatter to support the the end of the Bush tax cuts.

I think I'm safe at the moment.

fish82;446157 wrote:This. To imply that raising taxes created 22 million jobs is probably the stupidest thing I'll read this week.

It's possible for an increase in the marginal rate to create an incentive for job creation if the person or business who's taxes go up seeks to reduce overall tax due by adding employees as ordinary and necessary business expenses to reduce the impact of the tax increase. I'm not saying that what the treasury secretary implied (perhaps that raising taxes actually spurred the job growth as opposed to say, the internet), but it's definitely possible. If I'm tax planning for someone who will be affected by the rate jump it may be the case that their business is sound enough that I can advise them to hire someone as a way to reduce their tax. Obviously in this economic environment that may not likely be the case but it may be for some folks. Just my 2 cents.

HitsRus;444940 wrote:Tax and spend. The American people have rejected it over and over, yet the left continues to devise new ways of disguising it. The plain and simple answer is to cut back on government programs and entitlements.

Thank you.

believer;446572 wrote:This. I don't think BHO is smart enough to get out of the way...unless, of course, he's playing a round of golf or two or sending his wife on Air Force Two for a Spanish vacation.

Enough! The New Ruling Elite have earned the royal treatment and we are forever indebted to them .... literally.

BoatShoes;447605 wrote:FWIW I think we should extend the cuts for everyone, even the top 2% until the recession is over and employment picks up. But, I'm BoatShoes the marxist/socialist liberal I'm ok with neo-keynesian policies to stimulate the economy when there's a lack of effective demand. Conservatives aren't supposed to be...but instead of being the party of balanced budgets....the republican party is now the party of keynesianism through tax cuts because America at its core is keynesian because a good job is our only safety net...we can't just ride it out on socialism until the market comes along.

But I noticed you didn't post what extending the bush era tax cuts for everyone would do to the deficit....

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID27052/images/deficit-graph-4-7-10(1).jpg

For as mad as conservatives are about what Obamacare and the Porkulus package will do to our deficits, they should be screaming bloody murder about what extending the bush tax cuts will do to them...but alas, the narrative continues....bankrupting the country is fine as long as its done through tax cuts.

I'm with believer, if the Ds in power now (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) were making spending cuts across the board instead of spending increases, I would be 100% fine with stopping the tax cuts.

However, they can't stop spending, so for that reason let American's keep more of their money so they have to borrow for the crap they want to spend spend spend it on.

I don't want my taxes getting raised to pay for the crap the Ds are passing. If they were making cuts I would be ok with a tax increase to balance the budget.

HitsRus;444940 wrote:That's all great if you don't believe that spending by the upper 2% means a great deal to the economy.

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/99740069.html

Tax and spend. The American people have rejected it over and over, yet the left continues to devise new ways of disguising it. The plain and simple answer is to cut back on government programs and entitlements.

This is just plain false. America has rejected paying for all of the things they like to spend on for the last 30 years. You really believe in your heart of hearts that the plain and simple answer is to cut back on social security and medicare....two very popular programs and the largest entitlements we have. You're living in a fantasy world. America taxed and spent for nearly 50 years and then came up with the wonderful idea that you could spend without taxing. Americans love to spend. That's all we know how to do anymore...you said it yourself as you said 70% of our economy is driven on consumption. Spend, Spend, Spend....America has embraced it over and over. The right are the one's selling snake oil. When the marxists in power tried to cut Medicare during the healthcare debate those on the right, the champions of cutting spending cried foul! If the conservatives get back in power, they will do nothing, absolutely nothing to cut interest on our debt, defense spending, medicare or social security but I'm confident they will find a way to put those expenses more and more on the credit card.

believer;447621 wrote:You think allowing the tax cuts to expire is responsible fiscal policy? Fine. When the socialists in DC who are calling the shots tell me that there will also be massive budget cuts across-the-board as a matter of responsible fiscal policy, I'll be the first conservative on Ohio Chatter to support the the end of the Bush tax cuts.

I think I'm safe at the moment.

Massive cuts to what???? The Social Security and Medicare you, an ardent and true conservative, has said better be there in full when you retire (and it wouldn't have been a good deal for you in this economic downturn had SS been successfully privatized).....Defense which is the last thing that should be cut according to conservatives as it is, even in an ultra-minimum state, the must crucial type of spending.....Interest on our sky rocketing national debt which will only get worse when our historically low interest rates have to raise???

Cuts to the big four are politically unfathomable....I tend to think we have more hope if we just stop believing that fairy tales are suddenly going to come true and accept that it's time to pay up for 30 years of partying in Vegas on the credit card...This country has had patriotism and paid higher taxes for national causes in the past...if we're really united under God we can do it again. But again, just like to clarify, I don't think that should happen until the recession/depression is over....if it'll ever be over, well that's another story....

HitsRus;445189 wrote:We've discussed on another thread how the middle class always takes the brunt of a tax increase, no matter who or how it is levied.

So in essence person X in the top 2%, who's profits are skyrocketing likely and who is squeezing more productivity out of workers and not hiring anybody, is agreed by the majority to have to pay more taxes as a citizen in a republican government founded on Lockean principles to have to pay a higher amount of taxes (which they might not agree to if he'd hire people who would have to pay taxes and broaden the tax base a little more) raises his prices to pass that tax on to the very people he refuses to hire. Your anger is not at this person but at the government? Society has asked that these taxes come from his profits. If you think this is wrong then you must think the whole concept of majoritarian rule as agreed to be the best, if not flawed system of government by our founders that conservatives like to talk about so much and the men they read to be a farce. Rapists defending the rapist. A man hoarding away the economic growth and production of his workers and sending their jobs to lands where labor laws are non-existent raises the price of your coke when he's asked to keep some of his money in America and the people who support the regulated capitalistic system that he benefits from and you defend him.

"The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." ~Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Not, Karl Marx notice?

There is a limit to tyranny of the majority and we retain the right to revolt against the leviathan's will but this is certainly not the time.

If the "trickle down" and broadening of the base that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 would have happened; it wouldn't be necessary to raise tax rates but this, as Iggey and Footwedge and others have pointed out, didn't and hasn't happened. Yet, like the freshmen girl in high school, you believe the senior quarterback really means it this time when he says he loves you even though history is not on your side.

Been away, but a prudent, realistic way out of our mess is to moderately cut spending (ending pork, cutting social programs, freezing others, etc) and the release of the Bush tax cuts so we go back to the tax policy of the 1990s. (where hey it wasn't a bad decade)

It will take a combination of a modest increase in taxes, back to the 90s level and spending cuts and freezes.

I'll probably get shot down, but realistically, it is the best way forward.

ptown_trojans_1;447966 wrote:Been away, but a prudent, realistic way out of our mess is to moderately cut spending (ending pork, cutting social programs, freezing others, etc) and the release of the Bush tax cuts so we go back to the tax policy of the 1990s. (where hey it wasn't a bad decade)

It will take a combination of a modest increase in taxes, back to the 90s level and spending cuts and freezes.

I'll probably get shot down, but realistically, it is the best way forward.

I agree MOSTLY with you on these points.

But Boatshoes is correct.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) was forced by New Deal-ish Federal mandates to shell over a significant portion of my income since I drew my first over-the-table paycheck in 1973 in order to participate in the country's largest socialist retirement scams known as Social Security and Medicare.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) now see these programs as the cornerstone of our retirement income. It's not because I think these programs are just, fair, and benevolent but because (a) I was forced by law to participate, (b) it's my money and I want it back, and (c) politicians on both sides of the aisle made the promise and I expect them to keep it. I realize point (C) is a bit laughable but valid nonetheless.

It may seem hypocritical to some that as a political conservative I'd be so defensive of these programs. I DO NOT defend the programs nor the socialism they represent. I'm merely expecting a return on my government-mandated "investment."

Trust me...draconian cuts in these programs will be a MAJOR political boondoggle for politicians on both sides of the aisle which (attention Mr. Boatshoes) is PRECISELY why the Repubs cried foul when BHO attempted to play financial games with it when he introduced the latest addition to American-style socialism known as ObamaKare.

Even Social Security itself is reporting to me that I pay 6.2% of my income into Social Security and 1.45% into Medicare. My employers have matched those percentages. Is it unreasonable for me (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) to expect to get my 12.4% when I hit 65 and a half? It's bad enough that at one point I could have collected the "benefit" at age 62 and now it's 65 and a half. Fine...OK...make us work a little longer to collect but do not tell me that despite being FORCED to contribute the maximum into the system, I cannot or will not receive the full benefit when I retire.

This is the serious flaw in socialist policies, isn't it? You toss a "safety" net at the people, they become accustomed to it, and then when it becomes financially difficult to sustain, the people become restless and the politicians get nervous. The Feds are bailing out financial institutions, American car manufacturers, and teachers unions with my tax dollars. Why shouldn't I expect them to do the same with government-mandated Social Security?

The premise behind Social Security is that we are too stupid and irresponsible to invest in our own retirement so the Feds took care of that for us. Apparently the Feds have been too stupid and irresponsible with our retirement income as well.

Bottom-line: I didn't start the socialist programs but I WAS forced to participate in them. I ask only that the Feds live up to their promises and honor 100% of my FORCED investment.

believer;448091 wrote:I agree MOSTLY with you on this points.

But Boatshoes is correct.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) was forced by New Deal-ish Federal mandates to shell over a significant portion of my income since I drew my first over-the-table paycheck in 1973 in order to participate in the country's largest socialist retirement scams known as Social Security and Medicare.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) now see these programs as the cornerstone of our retirement income. It's not because I think these programs are just, fair, and benevolent but because (a) I was forced by law to participate, (b) it's my money and I want it back, and (c) politicians on both sides of the aisle made the promise and I expect them to keep it. I realize point (C) is a bit laughable but valid nonetheless.

It may seem hypocritical to some that as a political conservative I'd be so defensive of these programs. I DO NOT defend the programs nor the socialism they represent. I'm merely expecting a return on my government-mandated "investment."

Trust me...draconian cuts in these programs will be a MAJOR political boondoggle for politicians on both sides of the aisle which (attention Mr. Boatshoes) is PRECISELY why the Repubs cried foul when BHO attempted to play financial games with it when he introduced the latest addition to American-style socialism known as ObamaKare.

Even Social Security itself is reporting to me that I pay 6.2% of my income into Social Security and 1.45% into Medicare. My employers have matched those percentages. Is it unreasonable for me (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) to expect to get my 12.4% when I hit 65 and a half? It's bad enough that at one point I could have collected the "benefit" at age 62 and now it's 65 and a half. Fine...OK...make us work a little longer to collect but do not tell me that despite being FORCED to contribute the maximum into the system, I cannot or will not receive the full benefit when I retire.

This is the serious flaw in socialist policies, isn't it? You toss a "safety" net at the people, they become accustomed to it, and then when it becomes financially difficult to sustain, the people become restless and the politicians get nervous. The Feds are bailing out financial institutions, American car manufacturers, and teachers unions with my tax dollars. Why shouldn't I expect them to do the same with government-mandated Social Security?

The premise behind Social Security is that we are too stupid and irresponsible to invest in our own retirement so the Feds took care of that for us. Apparently the Feds have been too stupid and irresponsible with our retirement income as well.

Bottom-line: I didn't start the socialist programs but I WAS forced to participate in them. I ask only that the Feds live up to their promises and honor 100% of my FORCED investment.

I agree with most of what you said, I'm with you in the "I'm forced to pay into it, I should get my money back".

However, I disagree with your one statement that SS is your main source of retirement savings/planned income. SS should be just 1 of a few "sources" of income for retirement, from 401k to IRA to maybe even real estate investments.

jmog;448128 wrote:I agree with most of what you said, I'm with you in the "I'm forced to pay into it, I should get my money back".

However, I disagree with your one statement that SS is your main source of retirement savings/planned income. SS should be just 1 of a few "sources" of income for retirement, from 401k to IRA to maybe even real estate investments.

Agreed but like many, many other Americans a little thing called life gets in the way.

A couple of unfortunate divorces, major job changes, etc. can wreak havoc on those 401K and real estate options. Again, Uncle Sam forced me to contribute to Social Security and Medicare which sucked up quite a bit of income I could have easily channeled to more lucrative private retirement options the last 35 years. Unfortunately Social Security is the primary source of retirement income for a lot more Boomers than we care to admit (myself included).

Not proud of my life circumstances or the poor "soul mate" choices I made but they happened.

believer;448091 wrote:I agree MOSTLY with you on these points.

But Boatshoes is correct.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) was forced by New Deal-ish Federal mandates to shell over a significant portion of my income since I drew my first over-the-table paycheck in 1973 in order to participate in the country's largest socialist retirement scams known as Social Security and Medicare.

I (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) now see these programs as the cornerstone of our retirement income. It's not because I think these programs are just, fair, and benevolent but because (a) I was forced by law to participate, (b) it's my money and I want it back, and (c) politicians on both sides of the aisle made the promise and I expect them to keep it. I realize point (C) is a bit laughable but valid nonetheless.

It may seem hypocritical to some that as a political conservative I'd be so defensive of these programs. I DO NOT defend the programs nor the socialism they represent. I'm merely expecting a return on my government-mandated "investment."

Trust me...draconian cuts in these programs will be a MAJOR political boondoggle for politicians on both sides of the aisle which (attention Mr. Boatshoes) is PRECISELY why the Repubs cried foul when BHO attempted to play financial games with it when he introduced the latest addition to American-style socialism known as ObamaKare.

Even Social Security itself is reporting to me that I pay 6.2% of my income into Social Security and 1.45% into Medicare. My employers have matched those percentages. Is it unreasonable for me (and millions of other Baby Boomer Americans like myself) to expect to get my 12.4% when I hit 65 and a half? It's bad enough that at one point I could have collected the "benefit" at age 62 and now it's 65 and a half. Fine...OK...make us work a little longer to collect but do not tell me that despite being FORCED to contribute the maximum into the system, I cannot or will not receive the full benefit when I retire.

This is the serious flaw in socialist policies, isn't it? You toss a "safety" net at the people, they become accustomed to it, and then when it becomes financially difficult to sustain, the people become restless and the politicians get nervous. The Feds are bailing out financial institutions, American car manufacturers, and teachers unions with my tax dollars. Why shouldn't I expect them to do the same with government-mandated Social Security?

The premise behind Social Security is that we are too stupid and irresponsible to invest in our own retirement so the Feds took care of that for us. Apparently the Feds have been too stupid and irresponsible with our retirement income as well.

Bottom-line: I didn't start the socialist programs but I WAS forced to participate in them. I ask only that the Feds live up to their promises and honor 100% of my FORCED investment.

Excellent post. We have been had and my and my childrens generation will pay for it. You know that little social security flier we get in the mail. Heralding the awesome benefits we will be getting when we retire. Its not worth the paper it is printed on. I laugh and toss it in the trash.

Society has asked that these taxes come from his profits. If you think this is wrong then you must think the whole concept of majoritarian rule as agreed to be the best, if not flawed system of government by our founders that conservatives like to talk about so much and the men they read to be a farce.

It is not a matter of whether I think it is wrong, as much as I'm not naive enough to believe that a man will not act in self interest....no matter how much he makes. If it were a matter of society"asking", and people paying taxes, we wouldn't need the IRS would we? We wouldn't need to make your employer an unpaid tax collector who garnishes a portion of your wages to feed the bloated spending in Washington. LOL...

"The government suggests that at your income level, you donate "$X.00" to the Treasury." I'm sure ALL but the top 2% would pay their suggested share...because they are 'good' people...and the top 2% are bad.....

I'm just trying to keep it real here. There is no business or employer that is not going to pass a tax on at the expense of his bottom line. To make tax policy on the assumption of something different, or on the basis of some elitist fantasy is ludicrous.

more boatshoes...

This is just plain false. America has rejected paying for all of the things they like to spend on for the last 30 years

No, what you posted is false but it is a common notion among the left that America "likes" what Washington is spending on. The truth is that American's have said 'we don't want high taxes' and we don't want to be forced to pay for things that we don't want.

TAX AND SPEND. I don't care how you obfuscate it, letting the tax cuts expire while proposing new entitlements is TAX AND SPEND. What's wrong with not spending what we don't have, raher than taking more to spend more?

HitsRus;453694 wrote:TAX AND SPEND. I don't care how you obfuscate it, letting the tax cuts expire while proposing new entitlements is TAX AND SPEND. What's wrong with not spending what we don't have, raher than taking more to spend more?

Quite true. Even if those tax and spend policies have to occur through the back door (IE: expiration of tax cuts) it's still tax and spend no matter what spin liberals apply to it.

Like I've said before when the leftists on Capitol Hill finally agree to spending cuts, I'll be the first Ohio Chatter conservative to agree that allowing the tax cuts to expire makes sense.

But as long as "spend now, spend more" is the norm in DC, our only "hope" of keeping the private sector economy moving is to allow the people to keep more of their money by extending the tax cuts.