Author Topic: American Jobs Act  (Read 16533 times)

Online guinpen

  • Global Moderator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2011, 09:10:40 PM »
I guess all I can say is WOW!
“Life is hard, it’s harder if you're stupid” - John Wayne

Offline HLecter

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4615
  • I HATE MIAMI.
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2011, 12:07:40 PM »
The democrats have a political playbook and they follow it well. It gets repeated daily by the mainstream media. Blame Bush or anyone else, call republicans extremists, obstructionists, etc., paint tea party members as racists, cla$$ warfare, etc. etc. etc.  Reading some of your posts - pen4life - it all sounds very familiar.

" the dumbest animal on the face of the planet earth is a poor republican."  

Would this be considered the ridicule you refer to or is this just an insult?

"According to the congressional budget office and independent analysts , the economic stimulus program was extremely effective in creating, and maintaining jobs."

The CBO used estimates based on computer models, which didn't factor in various facts.  We've all heard the created or "saved" rheteric.  But all you need to look at are actual jobs lost and unemployment.  But apparently a computer model trumps ecomomic reality.  As far as independent analysts and economists, you will find just as many that will tell you differently.

"In additiuon it saved the american auto industry, the american and perhaps the world economy."

I will leave it at this concerning the US economy...it cannot sustain itself going in the direction we are headed.  Eventually, collapse will happen unless spending is cut, some regulation is eliminated and reform takes place in many areas. And that isn't even considering the regulatory nightmare of obamacare that we'll face in the near future.

"I have little faith in "private investment"  because the only thing that matters to them is their bottom line."

The bottom line matters to any size company, the fact is small business owners create many jobs.

"It was a deregulated investment and banking industry that helped to get us in this mess inthe first place."

Both democrats and republicans each get blame for various issues we face today.  Previous admininstrations as well - both Clinton and Bush.

"It looks to me that the republicans are only interested in obstruction and siezing power. They are totally critical of our president but offer nothing to address our current problems."

Simply not true.  Pay more attention to ideas being presented and legislation being pa$$ed in the republican controlled House. 

"They manufacture crisis but neglect the real challanges to america."  

I believe it was Raum Emanuel that once said to never let a crisis go to waste.

Pen4life, I respect your opinion, we each certainly have that right, but I just don't agree with most of what you said.  We'll see in the next 16 months and if obama manages to get re-elected who is correct. 

PS - please dont report me to Attack Watch :)



SCOREBOARD !
I HATE MIAMI.  WATERBOARDING IS NOT TORTURE.  ABORTION IS.

I missed a four-footer for par the other day--THAT DAMN BUSH!

Offline HLecter

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4615
  • I HATE MIAMI.
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2011, 12:09:05 PM »
Our main problem is NOT spending. Spendinging cuts won't do anything to help in the short run. 10 to 20 years maybe. Our problem is that our economy is stagnent. We were told in the past and we are still told today that reducing the tax burdon on the poor unfortunate wealthy would stimulate the economy. It didnt, it wont. this claim is as empty today as it was in the past. Instead of creating jobs the wealthy took the money offshore hired Pakistanis , Mexicans, Vietnamese bought Yachts in Italy and generally laughed all the way to the bank.  Then these same wealthy fat cats turn around and have the audacity to say "dont punish us for being successful" by making us pay what you poor folks pay in taxes (i.e. our fair share) which in my opinion is a heck of a lot more than they are being asked to pay. Reducing spending without stimulating the economy will make things worse.

Oh and the media is not liberal. Some of the newscasters may vote for dems but the media is owned lock stock and barrel by very conservative interest groups

Yes we use computer models these days. but these models are based on actual data that is collected and fed into the models. Think how bad unemployment would be if we hadnt stimulated the economy. Locally the Lordstown plant would probably be inhabited by bats by now.

The republican, teapartyy  agenda offers me nothing, and offers america nothing. Congressional republicans vote no to everything even things they strongly supported just a few days ago. They just want to win the next election and they dont seem to care if it means destroying the country to do it.

Regarding the dumb animal quote let me quote the great coservative icon Rush Limbaugh "c'mon can't you take a joke?"     


Reading the above is painful.  Spell Check please.
I HATE MIAMI.  WATERBOARDING IS NOT TORTURE.  ABORTION IS.

I missed a four-footer for par the other day--THAT DAMN BUSH!

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11654
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2011, 04:44:16 PM »
I am not normally for these conversations, but way too much one-side BS in this thread. Reducing the tax rates across the board will help no one? Reducing the taxes on business and wealthy will do wonders to the economy. Why? Because no one with income under 26,700 pays Federal income taxes. If they do, they need to go H&R block. So since no politician will commit political suicide, they will not cut taxes on the upper percentages. I mean there is something fundamentally unfair about a system that charges a higher tax rate to one citizen over another, based on income.

Spending cuts will not help in the short run? There is NOTHING better in the short-run. The question is the allocations of the funds saved. If they are earmarked for any uncovered existing expenses ...not another new expense (aka Clinton and W).

Helping people who are stupid enough to spend too much money on a home should not be helped. Let the home go into foreclosure as it is supposed to. Same thing with businesses. Why should a GM receive money while every independent gas station in the country is "muscled" out of business.

Furthermore, while on the topic of gas ...a country that conquers the nation that houses the world's third-largest amount of oil reserves should not be paying anything for their petroleum; let alone $4-a-gallon. So why are we paying for gas? I agree that we should charge a slight stipend to help pay for the war effort, but not $3 worth.

While on the topic of war. The reason the US economy has always improved during a war is because the citizens pay extra taxes to compensate. Yet that is not happening here, so how can this war be anything but an unrecoverable expense?

Media is owned by highly-conservative interest groups? That is the only thing that is painful. Would you please back that statement up, do not say Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdock. Don't confuse the most popular with the most in terms of quantity. Before you go on, I hate them both. They cater to idiots with a soul; while the remaining liberal media cater to idiots that refuse to accept the existence of a soul.

As far as health care. We are supposed to be a capitalist society. You cannot give anything directly to individuals. That would be no different that giving someone a dilapidated home, knowing they do not have the funds to fix it. The government cannot be everything, and cannot become an insurance carrier. Their job is to force health care financial providers to "tow the line" or have the contract given to another firm.

As to this supposed republican "tea party conspiracy". Does any party member here honestly believe that splitting the Republican party is a good idea? So why not throw the Tea Party "out with the bath water"? The only way that this could help the Republican party is if they receive those tea party votes in the end. With the number of victories the tea people are receiving, just what makes you think this will ever happen once their power grows sufficiently? It is not.

Net result: republican party/2 = half the republican party base.

Now with this in mind ...what makes you think this is anything but a democratic tea party conspiracy? Remember Ross Perrot? Our system is bipartisan, and works best when the two are arguing. Why bring a third party into the fold?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 05:33:29 PM by IAA Fan »

Offline pen4life

  • Humboldt Penguin
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2011, 11:13:57 PM »
A progressive tax  with the wealthiest paying at a higher rate is as american as apple pie and was endorsed by thomas paine and james madison. In a capitalist society the gov't has two important functions, opportunity (to acquire wealth) and maintanence (to insure you keep it once you get it), This requires a  vast infrastructure roads, police, military courts, patent offices etc. The more you have , the more you use these things hence the more you need to pay in taxes. Tax cuts for the rich = welfare for the rich.

In time of war the tax rate does not go up rather many more people are working and working more hours to support the war effort. Why? Not because big business is patriotic rather because of of a huge infusion of gov't
money purchasing materials of war. A great big gov't stimulus program. And it works in war and peace.

Our economy has slowed down, people are not spending, what our economy needs is spending and if people or the private sector are not spending that only leaves the gov't. Cutting gov't spending would be economic suicide. Remember calvin cooledge? We just don't learn do we.

Oh and I have some really bad news for you the gov't has been in the insurance business since the inception of medicare, Why dont you ask all the people on medicare if they want gov't out of the insurance business.
They will say no. Gov't does a much better job than private insurers. Why? administative costs of medicare are 3% average administrative costs of private insurane 36%. we currently spend much more on health care than any other industrialized nation and its pretty poor. Infant mortality in the US is higher than Nicaragua.

We have to analyze our beliefs objectively and not just listen to the echoes of others who agree with us. And yes it is sometimes painful to read the truth especially when it challenges what we would prefer to believe. 

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11654
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2011, 12:47:16 PM »
Thomas Paine? He was a "tea bagger" that wrote a pamphlet he called 'Common Sense'. It is not like he was a wealth of knowledge on the subject of taxation. He supported taxation, never went into details. (ie: tax structure). BTW he also believed that an employer already paid taxes & employees paying taxes is double-taxation. Yet he supported the concept. James Madison was almost an extreme liberal. Just because they were alive at the foundation of our nation does not make them conservative and/or great thinkers. Madison had some progressive ideas on property ownership and resulting taxation ...that is about it. However he did not develop those until he almost lost his families estate do to tax issues.

Now, with an 18% rate ...if I make 100k, I will pay about 18k in Federal taxes. If you make a mil ...you will pay 180k. Simple math tells you who pays more. There is absolutely no need for anyone to pay a higher rate than another ...for ANY reason, aside from punitive measures. (ie: illegally acquired funds, or poor business practices). It is simply does not promote capitalism. It is nothing short of Feudalism. So why is it you have no issue with one person paying a higher tax rate than another, but you do have an issue with tax breaks? Both are equally unfair. Tax breaks can serve a purpose in building  the foundation of an economy, or as a reward. The issue is that they do not require distribution of the funds in many cases. For example ...a donation. Simply put, it is an individual's duty to support the government, not the other way around.

As to war, there have been many more wars other than WWII, so do not use it as your sole guide to war time economies. I would stop short of saying that people are working to support the war effort. People at home are working to fill a void left by those workers that went off to war (took another job). This is what stimulates the economy.  Prior to 1900, the US did not have much of a military. Men banned together to defeat invading armies, then went back home to the fields. Prior to WWI, most women lost their estates when their husbands, and hands, went off to war and were killed. Women (as a whole in the US) did not work prior to WWII; neither were they in the military. Their husbands stopped working at the mill, and instead went to work fighting. Yes, being a soldier is (and always has been) a job. So most of the WWII expansion of the work force came as a result of these wives taking jobs they have never had before. So, the war becomes the recipient of this expansion (or economic growth) ...it simply absorbs the excess. The issue was when the soldiers came home, they had no jobs to come home to, when they were "laid off" by the US military. Women became empowered and did not give up these jobs that their male counterparts previously held. Being brand new employees, the average wage was less than those of their male predecessors, so the companies did not mind keeping them. The government paid for businesses to retool for the resources needed to fight the war, but two issues:

1. Most businesses had to stop producing what they had before the war, so this was a loss of product and resulting capital. In other words, the profits made because of the war only covered this up. The burden shifted to the government.

2. The government did not pay to have the shops re-tooled back to the way they were prior to the war. Nor were these businesses reimbursed for the profits lost from #1 above.

Of course it would be unpatriotic to think that the government should have to pay for the loss in economic growth. However, it does not mean that the resulting depression would be any less.

Of course, a slow economy by definition means people are not spending. However increased government spending will never act as a catalyst for anything but larger government. (I guess you could try to force them to hire more people with it, but good luck). Where as lack of government spending will always act as fuel. It acts as fuel for the reduction in size. The only way government spending can stimulate the economy is to pay it directly to it's citizens ...aka welfare. At this point the government is powerless to ensure the money is spent ...this is the foundation of supply-side economics. Now they could also give this increase in spending directly to businesses, but since there is no direct dollars to give, they can only decrease the businesses tax requirements.

You are right, but only to a point, on our government being an insurance carrier. Your term "insurance business" is more accurate. You act as though medical coverage (or health care) is some sort of entitlement? This could be the fundamental difference between us. I completely disagree, and that is not what medicare was designed for ...that is what it has become. People die ...it is a fact of life.  As to your infant rates, that is just a sob story. Even the United Nations (which hates the US) has us ranked 34th in the world at 6.47%. That is quite good, and it is because we are a welfare state that we are even that high. Prior to welfare, our infant rate was over 39% ...which was actually still quite fantastic for the time. Why? Because we had advances in medicine acting as a catalyst to stimulate fair pricing.

Use aspirin as an example. In the history of medicine, no other drug has done more to heal and save lives than simple aspirin. Yet the battle that aspirin caused is legendary. Most everyone wanted it to be regulated as a drug. Yet, without regulation, a bottle of 500 has a price of about .79. Why should any common drug cost any more? Yet it did cost much more prior to 1915, when it was first available without a prescription. So why is it that the drug cost so much more in Britain (including Canada)? Regulations. The US medical community has improved beyond aspirin because of this.

Quote
We have to analyze our beliefs objectively and not just listen to the echoes of others who agree with us. And yes it is sometimes painful to read the truth especially when it challenges what we would prefer to believe. 

Great statement!! The reason that I posted in the first place is because both sides on this issue are guilty. My beliefs, Lecter's, and yours can all be wrong ...or right. I will never agree to anything being controlled by the government for non-punitive measures. I expect everything to paid for in full and fair. Now if you feel that many things in today's economy are unfair (and the government should step in) ...now we are on the same page; but changing the foundation of our economy is not the solution.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 12:51:52 PM by IAA Fan »

Offline pen4life

  • Humboldt Penguin
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2011, 07:17:50 PM »
Oh the poor poor rich . I realize how mean and unfair I have been expecting them to shoulder such an unrealistic burdon, Instead lets raise the taxes on the poor. Those families of four who make 26K or less. Have you ever heard of the Stolkholm effect? Identification with the aggressor? I'll suck up to the rich and maybe they will allow a few crumbs to fall from their table for me.


Thomas Paine a "Tea bagger" ? Read some of his stuff after Common Sense. He advocated an extremely progressive rate of taxation and a welfare state. This guy if he lived today would have been hated by the Tea baggers.

Yes I believe health care is a right.

I believe that America is about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that all men are created equal not letting the privledged few get richer and richer by exploiting the nations resources, environment and workers.

If you make a billion/ year you pay 1.8 mil. at 18% but you use a lot more than that in the infrastructure. So you owe more than a mere 18% . How many times have you used the patent office in the last year or in your lifetime? There is absolutly nothing punitive about the rich paying their fair share . And what is their fair share?  Whatever it takes to maintain a quality of life for all people in  this country.

The problem with capitalism is that it is based  man's lesser instincts...... greed and if Ive got mine who gives a rat's behind about others. The people who are good at playing the capitalism game are not noble humans who should be treated exceptionally nor should they be allowed to hold america hostage threatening to take the jobs away if they dont get their exceptional treatment. America enabled these clowns to get rich, very rich and they owe America alot. Clinton raised the taxes and the deficit went down and employment went up.  We just dont learn from the past do we?

There is no free market, it is an uneven playing field.

 

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11654
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2011, 04:31:54 PM »
Sorry i did not reply earlier, just caught up the site. I think you are letting your emotions get the best of your last post pen4life (great name btw). I used to read up on all those people in history, just no time anymore I guess. Stolkholm syndrome? I do not even see the application here, but that could be me ...I take from no one ..crumbs or meals.

I also think you are comparing modern "tea baggers" with the historical ...not even close ...today's just adopted the name. Traditional tea baggers dealt with teh allegiance of America to Britain.

I am a true conservative, which has nothing to do with a political party. To make it simple, I am conservative economically and socially. I believe in the conservation of all resources. However, there are many resources that may not fit into one party or the other.

For example, I love the wilderness, and the conservation of natural resources. However, I will not see people lose jobs, or pay any undue burden to maintain it. I am very cheap financially, and live on a modest income. Now if I can see the US tap into oil reserves, to reduce the cost of my gasoline, I would like them to do it. However, I also see the fact that we just conquered a country with some of the largest oil reserves in the world ...thus we now "own" those resources ...paid for by the blood of my people. So there is no need tap as of yet ..use their while it should be cheap. The fact that we do not this is due to a very liberal president in Bush. "Protect the world at your expense." Spend, spend, spend ..to hedge the economy (as you suggest) is all he ever did.

Here is is a financial example. I used to work in Trust for Society bank. At that time many of my customers had bonds from the Jimmy Carter era. I do not know your age, but you could imagine just how high the interest being paid was ..over 20% in many cases. These people used to call me to get a distribution to purchase items. For example, a car. Now these people were having me sell a 100k bond, yielding $20k+ in interest annually, to buy a $12k car. Then I would buy another bond with the balance, yielding only 6% to 7%. If they only realized just how much that car really cost them. The prudent recommendation was to borrow for the car (then about 7% to 8%) & save the bond for as long as possible.

This story being told ...most of the "rich people" you hate had trusts from generations ago. 1) These people left several thousands of dollars 10k+. Unfortunately, this sum was astronomical a century ago, but is less than minimum wage today.  2) Many of my customers were mentally retarded, and their parents/grandparents set them up a fund to survive.  3) Many of my customers had money set aside for education. Quite frankly .. 4) many of them are just rich and belong to the yacht club (I lived in Ashtabula).  Do you see these people (all rich) as being any different? A young retarded person may have a million dollars, but that is going be gone long before they are ...as they have no other way to generate income. So should they start collecting welfare now, or wait until they have spent the money? Well Jimmy Carter said they can collect welfare now, while congress previous went the other way years earlier (one was a dem congress, the other a dem president). The banks lobbied congress to allow these small trusts to be distributed in a lump sum, as opposed to few hundred dollars a year (fees were higher than that). Instead, congress told us we had to administer the accounts for free. Now how is that fair? My point in this confusion is that at some point, everyone has to be the same, and common sense has to rule out.

This gets to your point about wealthy using more resources. There is no validity to that statement at all. A Mercedes wears down the asphalt as quickly as a Yugo. The only resources in greater use by the wealthy are the bureaucratic paper pushers the government agencies hire to try and find ways to get more money from them ...which really just forces the rich to do the same to protect themselves. The government chooses to spend that money. A flat tax would eliminate all of this unnecessary "paper-pushing".

Now if you are talking business resources, that is something all together different, and not really part of my point ..I am talking about income.

It is good to have these conversations.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 04:42:49 PM by IAA Fan »

Offline pen4life

  • Humboldt Penguin
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2011, 07:09:22 PM »
The wealthy do indeed use government resources geometrically more than the lower strata.just one example... welfare for the poor 112 billion per year. Welfare for the rich 400 billion per year. Because they have more. there is more to protect. If youy drive a mercedes you will be paying alot more for insurance than the driver of the Yugo.  Governemnt stimulus programs have been a gift to the rich throughout american history. we develeoped a trans continental railroad in the 1800's because of gov't stimulus grants and the govt giving 10 sq miles of land for every mile of track layed.
I'm not saying this is all bad but there are always "the other side". There is very little black and white, it is all very very grey. and the more you read the more you learn and the more you ask what's the othewr side, the greyer it gets.  Some times conservatism is wise and sometimes its foolish and the same applies to liberalism.

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11654
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2011, 12:27:13 PM »
The wealthy do indeed use government resources geometrically more than the lower strata.just one example... welfare for the poor 112 billion per year. Welfare for the rich 400 billion per year. Because they have more. there is more to protect. If youy drive a mercedes you will be paying alot more for insurance than the driver of the Yugo.  Governemnt stimulus programs have been a gift to the rich throughout american history. we develeoped a trans continental railroad in the 1800's because of gov't stimulus grants and the govt giving 10 sq miles of land for every mile of track layed.
I'm not saying this is all bad but there are always "the other side". There is very little black and white, it is all very very grey. and the more you read the more you learn and the more you ask what's the othewr side, the greyer it gets.  Some times conservatism is wise and sometimes its foolish and the same applies to liberalism.

If a person is rich, there is no such thing as welfare. You may call a tax-break welfare, but I do not & I am talking about direct income from the government. Insurance on a Mercedes is not welfare either ...it is what a business charges for their services ..fair or unfair, it is not really relevant. The entire country was built via stimulants, as opposed to direct slavery. Made many poor quite wealthy via stimulants. People were given the land for free ...then paid to lay railroads on it. In the south, the land was sometimes given from other nations as well. I agree about things being wise or unwise, but things are quite a bit more "cut and dry" than you think. It gets back to what we were saying about our perceived entitlements (job, medical, etc.). I would be interested in knowing just what you feel the government does owe us ...and why.

Offline pen4life

  • Humboldt Penguin
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2011, 06:48:44 PM »
It's not about what the government owes us, rather it is about what WE owe America and what our idea of America is. I want an America that is strong, stable, just and compa$$ionate. Paying back to America the nation that enabled  me to have all that I have is my and every Americans ( including corporations) patriotic duty. America just aint gonna continue to happen unless we all get off our cheap and self obsessed behinds and pay back what we owe.


I remember 2 things that were said when I was a kid. JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" The other thing I heard said in the 60's when I was protesting the Vietnam War " boy, this heres Amerika, Love it or leave it" 

You have to stop thinking in terms of what is owed me, cause the answer is NOTHING !

My idea of America is about opportunity and justice for all people, And if someone has a problem with that I say Boy, this is America, LOVE it or leave it. Seriously check out Somalia it may be what your looking for.

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11654
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2011, 11:00:57 PM »
I agree with you last post completely.