No More Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

[BA142]

How about the far right stops pissing on the far left...and vice versa. Everybody in this country is too busy pointing fingers instead of looking for a REAL solution.


Republican's and Democrats are both exactly the same when it really comes down to it. Although Right Wing social views are stuck in the 17th century...

 

[abandonconflict]

The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment, which the chairman of the GOP-led House oversight committee said is being done for “clearly political purposes.”
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made the assertion during a hearing on how the administration counts so-called green jobs and the Labor Department’s recent change to how reporters can access key unemployment reports and other information.
The Labor Department "has jeopardized the integrity of employment data in some cases for clearly political reasons," he said.
Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs – a major initiative for President Obama.
“It’s about politics. It’s always been about politics,” said Issa, R-Calif. “If you work at the Salvation Army, that’s a green job.”
When Bureau of Labor Statistics Acting Commissioner John Galvin balked on what qualifies as a green job under the agency definition, Issa responded, “Just answer the question.”
“Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels -- is that a green job?” Issa asked.
“Yes,” replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and “the guy who puts gas in a school bus” are all defined as green jobs.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/06/issa-obama-administration-classifies-jobs-with-political-purpose/#ixzz1x2o445yZ
​

lol Faux Nooz link.

 

[Hemlock]

As the election draws closer, the two most closely watched economic indicators are the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created. On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued bad economic news. The number of jobs created was only 69,000 and the unemployment rate increased from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. In a presidential campaign, the difference between an 8.2 and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate or a month of 250,000 jobs versus 69,000 can be the difference between re-election and defeat.

The die is already cast. Obama bet all his money on Keynesian stimulus propped up by super-expansionary monetary policy, the Detroit bailout, and extensions of unemployment insurance. He has nothing left other than infrastructure projects, subsidies for state teachers and first responders, and a feeble jobs credit for small business. The one move that could turn things around quickly — extension of the Bush tax cuts – would deprive Obama of his prime campaign message that “the rich must pay their fair share.” In a piece dated August 28, 2011 Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program, I laid out an anti-Keynesian jobs program to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The third point in my program read “to create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs.” To do this, I advised not to extend unemployment benefits and to reduce the minimum wage, particularly for youths. The President did not follow my advice and look where he is now.

 

[abandonconflict]

As the election draws closer, the two most closely watched economic indicators are the unemployment rate and the number of jobs created. On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued bad economic news. The number of jobs created was only 69,000 and the unemployment rate increased from 8.1 to 8.2 percent. In a presidential campaign, the difference between an 8.2 and a 7.5 percent unemployment rate or a month of 250,000 jobs versus 69,000 can be the difference between re-election and defeat.

The die is already cast. Obama bet all his money on Keynesian stimulus propped up by super-expansionary monetary policy, the Detroit bailout, and extensions of unemployment insurance. He has nothing left other than infrastructure projects, subsidies for state teachers and first responders, and a feeble jobs credit for small business. The one move that could turn things around quickly — extension of the Bush tax cuts – would deprive Obama of his prime campaign message that “the rich must pay their fair share.” In a piece dated August 28, 2011 Why Obama Cannot Support a Real Jobs Program, I laid out an anti-Keynesian jobs program to create jobs and lower the unemployment rate. The third point in my program read “to create economic conditions that encourage businesses to hire and the unemployed to seek and accept jobs.” To do this, I advised not to extend unemployment benefits and to reduce the minimum wage, particularly for youths. The President did not follow my advice and look where he is now.

Enjoy another 4 years of socialism!

I love it!.

 

[blindbaby]

thats why castro came to america for his health crisis?????? no health care funded by any gov, (the people) worked at very least. i personally know, of a middle age couple, who actually applied for us citizenship based on the crappy health care they were getting in canuck vill! i will try again.......STOP LISTENING TO HE LIBERAL MEDIA!

 

[blindbaby]

the others hate fox, because they report what the others decide amonst themselves, that the public has no "need to know". fox, strangly has nearly 90% of our veiwership. why? the 90% belive them over the sucky socisalt media. me too. look at the recall thing. the liberal media still try to spin it for ohbama! what a joke! and the good part? that media continues to lose veiwers every day! this is a good thing. fox had most of it. maybe they should have their profits stollen, and used to pay for free shit???????????? not.

 

[blindbaby]

if a one bird dies in an oil field, the media is all over it. BAD OIL!. if 100 birds fly into windmills, and die, ........well, its ok, as long as its in the name of "green"? animnal rights groups wont touch it. but they do, if the one bird dies. can we say "hypoctites?" one way or another, the libs are going to get their mouths slapped shut. they desperatly need it.

 

[abandonconflict]

thats why castro came to america for his health crisis?????? no health care funded by any gov, (the people) worked at very least. i personally know, of a middle age couple, who actually applied for us citizenship based on the crappy health care they were getting in canuck vill! i will try again.......STOP LISTENING TO HE LIBERAL MEDIA!

ROFL good times...

 

[canndo]

the governments job is not to create jobs! not! thats for private industry. unless, of course, the leftists like taxing job creators right out of the country. the less government anyone has, the better off they are! who likes the idea of being told that "we the government" knows whas best for you?? not me. russia, china, n korea, iran,venezuella, all do not beleive this of course. they like controling all the buisness, and keeping everyone the same level. the peasant level......let private enterprise grow, like it used to. and we will have jobs back. i love how the left, now that they have failed with thier recall of scott, now says "democracy is dead!!" see what i mean by losers??? lol. they are the ones who wanted to not give him even one term, as they saw him cut lots of free shit. lol......and begin to balance the budget. now, they are so mad that the unions out spent scotts, that they are claiming its the other way around. what losers. we need rid of this party that used to be democrats, but got hyjacked by bunch of socialists. maybe they can hire one of the justices, like one of ohbamas appointees, to say its good, and install the democrate anyway!! ill bet they try!! lie. cheat. steal. the liberal way of victory! fek em. cant wait till nov. id like to see EVERY ONE VOTED OUT.

the right claims to "understand" economics and the free enterprise system, after all they revere it. but the truth is that they don't have a clue as to what works and what doesn't in their own country.

Lower taxes do not create jobs
"Job creators" don't create jobs
Incentives to businesses don't create jobs
Demand, and demand alone creates jobs. If a company finds that demand for their products outstrips their ability to produce those goods then they will hire people. Period.

Now the fact is that in order to have demand there must be people with the money to purchase those products.

In the last 30 years the average wage for the average person in this country has gone down even as their productivity has increased. At the same time, the average income for the richest of us has gone up. Rich people create nothing, they provide a valuable service and are paid handsomely for that service but they still create nothing of intrinsic value.

Therefore, reducing taxes on the rich creates nothing. It creates no jobs, it enables no change in the status quo except for a negative feedback loop. Fewer taxes means more money to invest in proceedures to reduce taxes which allows even more money to spend in order to reduce taxes still further. Remember what I said, Only workers create wealth and only the masses create demand.

Now, the less workers make for their work the less they have to spend, the less they have to spend the less demand, the less demand the fewer jobs. Allowing the rich to keep more money does not have the same effect - a rich person can and will only buy so many shirts, so many pairs of shoes, so many couches or refrigerators or even houses. In short, worshiping or coddling those who can best afford to help themselves will not now nor has it ever been a formula for getting a country out of depression.

Now it is true that a tax dollar makes fewer rounds in the economy but a dollar in the hands of a rich person makes even fewer rounds in that same economy.

 

[Hemlock]

the right claims to "understand" economics and the free enterprise system, after all they revere it. but the truth is that they don't have a clue as to what works and what doesn't in their own country.

Lower taxes do not create jobs
"Job creators" don't create jobs
Incentives to businesses don't create jobs
Demand, and demand alone creates jobs. If a company finds that demand for their products outstrips their ability to produce those goods then they will hire people. Period.

Now the fact is that in order to have demand there must be people with the money to purchase those products.

In the last 30 years the average wage for the average person in this country has gone down even as their productivity has increased. At the same time, the average income for the richest of us has gone up. Rich people create nothing, they provide a valuable service and are paid handsomely for that service but they still create nothing of intrinsic value.

Therefore, reducing taxes on the rich creates nothing. It creates no jobs, it enables no change in the status quo except for a negative feedback loop. Fewer taxes means more money to invest in proceedures to reduce taxes which allows even more money to spend in order to reduce taxes still further. Remember what I said, Only workers create wealth and only the masses create demand.

Now, the less workers make for their work the less they have to spend, the less they have to spend the less demand, the less demand the fewer jobs. Allowing the rich to keep more money does not have the same effect - a rich person can and will only buy so many shirts, so many pairs of shoes, so many couches or refrigerators or even houses. In short, worshiping or coddling those who can best afford to help themselves will not now nor has it ever been a formula for getting a country out of depression.

Now it is true that a tax dollar makes fewer rounds in the economy but a dollar in the hands of a rich person makes even fewer rounds in that same economy.

No disrespect canndo however your rant is not based in fact but your opinion. all the stimulus done during the Great depression was a failure. Goverments propping up the economy by buying our own debt and printing money will NEVER SOLVE the problem and that is what your President has done. Demand has not gone up but the market has. How is that possible, well when the government gives green business tax breaks for trying to do green business it never lasts look at all the Green companies Obama Admin has given loan to, most of them will go under as soon as the tax breaks and gov secured loans are taken away. If you can't compete with no help from the gov then you are doomed to fail.

 

[beenthere]

the right claims to "understand" economics and the free enterprise system, after all they revere it. but the truth is that they don't have a clue as to what works and what doesn't in their own country.

Lower taxes do not create jobs
"Job creators" don't create jobs
Incentives to businesses don't create jobs
Demand, and demand alone creates jobs. If a company finds that demand for their products outstrips their ability to produce those goods then they will hire people. Period.

Now the fact is that in order to have demand there must be people with the money to purchase those products.

In the last 30 years the average wage for the average person in this country has gone down even as their productivity has increased. At the same time, the average income for the richest of us has gone up. Rich people create nothing, they provide a valuable service and are paid handsomely for that service but they still create nothing of intrinsic value.

Therefore, reducing taxes on the rich creates nothing. It creates no jobs, it enables no change in the status quo except for a negative feedback loop. Fewer taxes means more money to invest in proceedures to reduce taxes which allows even more money to spend in order to reduce taxes still further. Remember what I said, Only workers create wealth and only the masses create demand.

Now, the less workers make for their work the less they have to spend, the less they have to spend the less demand, the less demand the fewer jobs. Allowing the rich to keep more money does not have the same effect - a rich person can and will only buy so many shirts, so many pairs of shoes, so many couches or refrigerators or even houses. In short, worshiping or coddling those who can best afford to help themselves will not now nor has it ever been a formula for getting a country out of depression.

Now it is true that a tax dollar makes fewer rounds in the economy but a dollar in the hands of a rich person makes even fewer rounds in that same economy.

"Demand, and demand alone creates jobs." Perhaps with essentials like food, water and medicine, but we all understand that there's no economy that thrives on essentials alone.
You can have all the demand in the world for a product, but if you don't have a company with capital to manufacture and supply that demand, you have nothing.

And where do you think "demand" comes from, in most cases don't you think we first need a viable product for the public to demand?
How would one of those "greedy" companies get the capital for R&D, where would they get the capital to market that product to the public in order to create demand, and again, where is the money coming from to manufacture the product?

Your own words contradict your theory! If average wages for average Americans have been going down in the last 30ys, how did we find ourselves in one of the largest economic booms of our lifetime? Where did the average American find the money to invest in the stock market back in 1996-2002 and how was the average Joe making so much money? I'll give you a hint, the average American took a risk with capital and made investments, just like the "rich" do every day.

But with your beloved Keynesian theory, you put the cart before the horse and actually leave the horse in the barn. In contrast, the US was built on the solid foundation of personal liberty and free enterprise, and because of those two factors, this country became the most thriving and successful country in history.

With that said, would you care to give an example of when and where your Keynesian economic theory has ever worked.


I'll save you some time and tell you right now you won't find one.

 

[canndo]

No disrespect canndo however your rant is not based in fact but your opinion. all the stimulus done during the Great depression was a failure. Goverments propping up the economy by buying our own debt and printing money will NEVER SOLVE the problem and that is what your President has done. Demand has not gone up but the market has. How is that possible, well when the government gives green business tax breaks for trying to do green business it never lasts look at all the Green companies Obama Admin has given loan to, most of them will go under as soon as the tax breaks and gov secured loans are taken away. If you can't compete with no help from the gov then you are doomed to fail.

I don't know if the stimulus was a failure or not, it may be impossible to measure such things but Nowhere in my "rant" did I mention stimulus. The market is a projection or suppostion of where demand will be as much as it is a current indicator. I said nothing about competition, I said nothing about loans.

 

[canndo]

No, not essentials only, beenthere, ALL things, from iphones to racing forms. Many have formed companies, raised capital, hired employees and produced products for which for whatever reason there was no demand. They failed, now I suppose you could make the case that jobs were created, but in actuallity they were not. Now, your statment that without capital and a "company" to supply that demand you have nothing - not true, you still have that demand and it may well be met by other means, in this country demand is almost always met one way or another.

It is lamentable that so many believe that demand is created (it rarely is) or created by companies or corporations, it rarely is. Firstly, there is no product if there is no competition. Every product applies to a need but the products only respond to that need. We demand to be able to communicate, newspapers fulfilled a portion of that demand, now people think they demand newspapers but when the internet comes along, it competes with newspapers, the demand existed long before newspapers or the internet. Newspaper companies did not create a demand for communication, they simply fulfilled that demand with their particular product. Now take that to the most frivolous - entertainment. We demand entertainment but the desire for a particular form of entertainment may be created by a company or an artist, he is merely doing what he can to have you desire HIS form of entertainment over all the other forms. Demand is not (or rather rarely) created by the company or the product.

Where did I claim that companies are "greedy", seems your bias is showing. As I said, they do not (or rarely) create demand Now I will state that this is all in the realm of consumerism and things get rather hazy in b2b situations but not so much as one might imagine. Now what has aquiring capital for R& D to do with demand creating jobs? and who cares where the money comes from? There is always a demand for financial resources and as always, that demand creates jobs, not the money itself. If the demand for communication does not exist then no one will innovate new ways to communicate and the demand for captial will not exist - still, no jobs.

On the income of workers - You take us through a rather long route to go to demonstrate average declining income when we can simply go to the numbers rather than deduce through some observation of how well the country has done. I posted a graph of that income.

So far as your horse is concerned, demand creates jobs, no demand, no jobs. This has nothing to do with barns or horses it is a simple statement of irrefutable fact. Now what I have stated has nothing to do with personal liberty or lack thereof, other than that those with liberty AND disposable income tend to be more avid consumers. What I stated pretty much depends upon "free enterprise". What I see here is that you have taken afront to my initial statements and seem to have clicked in a prepared "free enterprise is good" recounting when I did not say it was not. It seems as though you feel you must defend this system when I have not attacked it. Interestingly, you seem to be reacting to my statement of fact that workers are more productive but have less income as some sort of attack on the free market. The free market is not solely the rich or corporations and that free market is driven by consumers, if those consumers have less disposable income the market will slow as we see happening now. Or could it be that you are upset with my statement that reducing taxes on the rich does not create jobs? That runs against what you have been led to believe and so you see attacks from this quarter that are not attacks at all? Only a guess.
Finally, I don't really see where I may have described keynsian theory, where government should at times intervene in private economics, kindly tell me where I may have advocated such a thing.

 

[beenthere]

Canndo, my quotation of greedy was used as a metaphor, the "greedy rich" is one of the most used mantras of the left, so you championing a Keynesian economic model leads me to believe you're a typical leftie.

There are so many holes in your last rant, I don't have the time to go over them all.
However, I will tell you this, NO product can be made or manufactured without investment capital and risk.

Before the iphone was marketed, there was NO demand, are you saying there is no demand today?

And if you truly believe demand cannot be created, then there lies the problem with your ability to grasp simple economics. No offense but I would suggest you take a college course in marketing and explain to your professor the fact demand cannot be created, rotsa ruck!

 

[abandonconflict]

Canndo, my quotation of greedy was used as a metaphor, the "greedy rich" is one of the most used mantras of the left, so you championing a Keynesian economic model leads me to believe you're a typical leftie.

There are so many holes in your last rant, I don't have the time to go over them all.
However, I will tell you this, NO product can be made or manufactured without investment capital and risk.

Before the iphone was marketed, there was NO demand, are you saying there is no demand today?

And if you truly believe demand cannot be created, then there lies the problem with your ability to grasp simple economics. I would suggest you take a college course in marketing and explain to your professor the fact that demand cannot be created, rotsa ruck!

There was plenty demand for an iphone before it existed. In 2004, I was walking around with 3 devices in my pocket.

 

[beenthere]

There was plenty demand for an iphone before it existed. In 2004, I was walking around with 3 devices in my pocket.

You had no idea what an iphone was in 2004, get real.

 

[canndo]

Canndo, my quotation of greedy was used as a metaphor, the "greedy rich" is one of the most used mantras of the left, so you championing a Keynesian economic model leads me to believe you're a typical leftie.

There are so many holes in your last rant, I don't have the time to go over them all.
However, I will tell you this, NO product can be made or manufactured without investment capital and risk.

Before the iphone was marketed, there was NO demand, are you saying there is no demand today?

And if you truly believe demand cannot be created, then there lies the problem with your ability to grasp simple economics. I would suggest you take a college course in marketing and explain to your professor the fact that demand cannot be created, rotsa ruck!

so rather than argue with ME, with the points I raise you are simply locating some prepared "rebuttal" and plugging that in, instead. Efficient but it might keep you from any sort of reality. You continue to mention Keys when as I said, I have posted nothing about government "interference" or "manipulation" so kindly explain to me how that theory enters the picture. As I said, between the "greedy" part and this, it seems to me that you aren't addressing my points at all, worse, you are disagreeing with things I haven't said.

I love the "there are so many holes...." part, where it is so easy to refute my statements that you won't bother right? Now Of course no product can be manufactured without risk or investment but that risk and investment is highly variable. Now what has that to do with creation of demand? Before the Iphone there was a demand for hand held computers and cellular phones, there was a demand for information and communication.

Be that as it may, my point, the salient point is that the rich do not create jobs nor do they create wealth and furthermore, lower taxes upon the rich will not expand our economy. The reasons have already been given.

 

[beenthere]

There was plenty demand for an iphone before it existed. In 2004, I was walking around with 3 devices in my pocket.

Is there plenty of demand for a pill that makes you live 50 years longer?

 

[abandonconflict]

You had no idea what an iphone was in 2004, get real.

I didn't need to know what an iphone was to want a product that checks all those boxes. When the iphone came out (yes after 2004) I no longer had to carry so many devices, as they were now consolidated into one. This is a perfect example of what Canndo means and it makes perfect sense.

 

[NoDrama]

Yeah, Cuba definitely isn't poor because of our cold war era sanctions and embargoes. At least they somehow managed better statistical health than the rest of the west.

Yeah, they have lots of evidence to suggest that you live longest when on the verge of continuous hunger . They have also found that when you live the fucking high life like us Americans you are predisposed to lead a more sedentary, calorie laden life. Candles that burn twice as bright burn for half as long.