How silly does the party that said no to stimulus look now?

Amen, Carloz. Dang, I wish I could vote that up more than once. This forum needs an 'applause' button.

#2.2:This forum needs an 'applause' button.

I'll agree with that -and even vote for it! Good idea, TM.

Don't think the Baggers will ever acknowledge that deficit-spending can work. It can't work if the goal is to immiserate labor so the American worker becomes "globally competitive" (i.e., cheap)-- and that's the Bagger goal: squeeze the middle-class till they're wage-slaves. Of course, Baggers will never mention those counter-examples that take a more generous approach to labor and handsomely reward it: Germany, Switzerland, the Scandanavian nations, et al.

Yes -- Germany, with one of the strongest economies in Europe, is also the most unionized. Don't hear the baggers screaming about that.

Germany is THE best performing economy of OECD first world , and union auto workers get paid twice what they do here, and Its been a net exporter only recently taken over by China as top exporter...

Corporations there pay higher taxes than the corporations here. The 35 percent tax rate listed for America is inaccurate given the way loopholes have been used. Huge corporations here pay little or no taxes due to these loopholes. Germany does not have loopholes and pays just under 35 percent.

They do not have tax cuts for the rich.

Their military spending is much less than America's.

Anybody notice there hasn't been a peep out of our usual "Obama haters" aka Republicans on this seed? Wonder why?

The only ones that will be voted out of office in 2012 will be the ruling Democratic Elite. The Republicans only control 1/2 of 1/3.

Thanks ;)

Their military spending is much less than America's.

That's because our military is over there at the USA tax payers expense

and that is by US demand actually.

makes me think of Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks.......

except in this case it the Committee of Silly Talk, Inaction, and Fraud, whose motto is, Lend a hand, Pitch a fit and be obdurate.

Jeffinva at #2.8 Where are all the republicans instead of on this seed? They have been over at my house for days, kicking me around and trying to start arguments about George Soros on my post about a recent court decision in favor of Scott Walker in another of his attempts to derail his inevitable recall election.

They always remind me of the persona of villians from the Rockford Files...

Good one, Debeki~

You are spot on!!

Hugh

Regarding your last sentence,we have all of that in Obama.

But the repigs block all of that vision for their F$$king selfish reasons and the fact that in their own words cannot accept a hoodsie in the whitehouse

I wish I could reach into my TV and punch the $hit out of McConnell and his ilk!!

Kevin

Unfortunately I don't see a lot of vision, and even the leadership part is ho hum (though it is definitely better than what is being offered from the GOP).

I just don't think straggling from one crisis to another crisis is an effective way to progress out of the economic quagmire that we are in.

Look harder dude--its there,be careful your media sources,straggling,that is the opposite of what this seed is about....

Leadership demands prioritization and very difficult decisions with regards to those priorities.

What will put the most people to work, increase the tax base, and payback the investment as well as aid in our defense?

First modernize the power grid. Develop alternate energy supplies where the cost of transmission and distribution are most costly.

Create new education opportunities by changing the annual schedule. Divide the school year into three separate parts. Which will put more teachers to work and expedite the process for students that want accelerated programs and perform. Use school property and state property to grow food, dairy products, and alternative energy. Teach vocational skills that students can use. Teach math kids can use like home budgets, interest rates, and how to use credit.

Cut back on military expenditures, cut back on Nasa, exploration, not R&D, cut back on subsidies.

Universal health care, remove the upward cost pressure caused by the illusion of health insurance. Provide comprehensive health care management programs by addressing fundamental and routine health maintenance which reduce costs greatly for chronic and basic health problems.

Start governmental job sharing. Insist on contract controls for jobs and projects that are bid on. No more "no bid" contracting.

We have got to get to a no frills way of doing things and remove fraud and waste. Jobs can be created by empowering regulators that are effective and the fraud they prevent will pay for the costs of the employees.

You sound like a progressive,good for you!!

buono,

cutting back on NASA right now is pretty much killing it. But most of NASA is actually R&D, that is its mandate (that exploration is conducted with R&D), so you contradict yourself with that comment.

Correct,cutting back on NASA is ridicule,makes NO sense.
Its the teabag agenda,one step forward,three steps back....

sorry i don't agree with your assessment of nasa

a lot of money spent on very little return, of substance that is, i don't give a @!$%# if there is water on mars, i do care a lot on whether kids get fed and get an education

the r and d i speak of refers to anything that doesn't evolve extra terrrestrial exploration, at this time,

far too much of it is just a black bag for the military

argue all you want, i don't and won't agree, it is not a priority we can afford, at this time

it's like living in a hovel but affording a plasma tv, doesn't make any sense at all

you all can argue all the benefits you want, I do not and won't agree, the benefits come from the taxes people pay, and it does not trickle down far enough to amount to a hill of beans

hugh

we spend so much more on a lot of social programs and get nothing back in return,

And another thing, guess what creates jobs, NASA,

And another thing, every penny that NASA spends is spent here on earth, pretty much all of it directly or indirectly in the US.

And no, the US military space program is about double what NASA's budget is. Most of NASA's research is here on the ground, in aeronautical (not space) research.

So killing NASA would actually hurt the US economy big time. It is very much a short term gain (a minor one at that) for long term pain.

And what I often say, if you have a trillion dollar deficit and you kill NASA, what do you have?

Answer: A trillion dollar deficit.

NASA's budget is PEANUTS.

and if you don't think the benefits trickle down, you haven't looked at it close enough. You know those extremely efficient airliners that are built by Boeing? guess where the basic research came from to build them, going from the composites research, to the research into fly by wire technologies, to the safety research, to the metal coatings research that goes into building engines that can technically last almost the life of the airplane which are also more fuel efficient per unit of energy produced than a subcompact car? It came from NASA.

Estimates have it that for every dollar that goes into NASA, more than 7 dollars comes out of it in secondary benefits. That is FAR more than what comes out of the military research which in the modern era, tends not to have many civilian applications.

AMEN.....the truth will prevail over Slick Willard and Prick "frothy" Santorum.

mike

er um, most 1%'rs pay little more than the tax rate for capital gains, so the comment that they pay less of a percentage is total BS.

And even the stop the spending is double speak. What you are actually saying is stop the spending that doesn't benefit my constituency. As far as you are concerned, your constituency is the social side of the equation, but the corporate side is verboten when it comes to cuts.

Now when I see some 1%'rs agree to cutting, lets say, the 500 million per year that is spent on keeping the hamptons from washing away into the atlantic, or tax subsidies to the most profitable companies on the planet, then maybe we can see some bipartisan talking. At this point though, all 'cutting spending' means is one sides programs.

Johnathan--Absolutely PERFECT!!!

Tax them at levels of former economic prosperity... Like the 1950's.

Capital Gains tax...

Trillion Dollar Givaway to the rich:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/01/310432/five-gop-candidates-eliminate-capital-gains/

Anybody you know??

Mike, tell me the moral basis for saying that Iraq attacked us and were ready to use WMDs to justify that spending and loss of life! Tell me that it's not immoral to spend money on subsidies to oil companies and at the same time watch them gouge our citizens with high gas prices to earn record profits! You talk about cutting spending to get the economy moving while the GOP says more tax giveaways (spending) equate to JOBS. Subsidies and tax loopholes cost us over $1 Trillion a year according to former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson of WY. Start there, lower taxes on the 99% and pass meaningful campaign finance reforms and you might see some semblance of return to the days of prosperity for all. Time and time again it has been proven that if the middle-class prospers, so do the rich. Please disengage your auto-reply button for that tired argument of the rich pay too much already!

Ron,

I haven't claimed such a moral basis...except that there were WMDs...I was there...I saw them.

Your comment regarding Oil Companies...I already addressed...there should be no tax breaks for businesses. Corporate profits should be taxed when the shareholders realized them as dividends and then at the same rate as regular income. Same with capital gains.

As to you "auto reply" comment...that is flat BS. The numbers are the numbers. The top 1percent do indeed pay most of the gross taxes and pay a larger percentage of their income than the 99 percent. That os according to the IRS. If you have some different numbers by a more reputable source, I'd be glad to listen.

If you wish to fix the tax code...we need to radically revise it. We divide it into two parts...pay for service....such as fuel tax to pay for FEDERAL highways. And a "head tax," that covers stuff like "common defense." everyone pays the same amount. if you wish to put an income "floor" on that whereby anyone below a certain level of income doesn't pay the head tax, no problem, they just don't get to vote in federal elections. Only exceptions would be military combat veterans and retirees over a certain age who had paid the head tax for a certain number of years previously.

Besides, the current tax code is only part of the problem. The major part, is the spending. The government spends way too much money, most of which is done wastefully and in an unconstitutional and flat out immoral manner.

Regards,

Mike

mike,

Post pictures of those WMD on your own seed to bolster your claim. I was in the first wave, and I never saw them. That WMD BS is just that - BS. This country was LIED to. Pure and simple.

As far as spending, we must spend. Jobs don't grow on trees. If those precious "job creators" aren't creating them, and there's not much evidence they are, government must. They're not just going to pop out of thin air.

When this economy is strong enough to bear the cuts, we cut. Then and only then. to try and make a case to do that beforehand is just silly. If there must be cuts, start with fraud and waste. that would ease the burden of how much is spent, but this congress isn't concerned with that.

Why not contact them with your proposals? Most of the rest of us here just don't believe you.

Monkey,

If you were there in first wave...like me, then you know we found weaponized chemicals and almost weaponized bio. I'm sure you know, unlike the media that seems to ignore this, but WMD is not only nukes, but it also includes bio and chemical.

As to your spending comment. Government spending is a huge part of why we are in this position. You cannot spend yourself out of this. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine...Every dollar the government spends, must be supported by 5 dollars in taxpayer income. Every government job, or private sector job paid for by the government must be supported by 5 private sector, taxpaying jobs on the average.

Jobs don't pop out of thin air. They are a result of private sector folks responding to demand and assuming risk. When demand is not increasing at a rapid rate, private sector employers tend to pay more overtime, rather than risk hiring new employees and all the extra costs they incur. The fact is, governments cannot create real jobs. All a government can do or not do is make it harder and more costly for employers to hire additional employees.

BTW, although I do not support the massive cuts to capability the POTUS is proposing for the military, I do believe there is a huge amount of waste and we should go after that with a chain saw.

Also a little math for you. Each federal job that is eliminated results in approximately 20 percent less revenue the taxpayers have to fork over for the first two years and 100 percent thereafter. THOSE are dollars that can go right onto the private sector and create more real jobs.

Regards,

Mike

There were plenty of cameras there, yet I have, as yet, seen no WMD. Not of chem/bio, either. Now, if you have them, post them. I, for one would love to have my time there verified with at least something I can claim as a reason.

Cut defense spending (which I believe Obama has begun), then those dollars that previously went into the black hole of defense spending can go to other means. We have the largest, best equipped land, sea and air forces in the world. We can afford to cut BILLIONS from that. After all, we are not North Korea.

Every reputable economist has stated that spending MUST occur, for the economy to improve. No, it isn't a "perpetual motion machine," but cuts will not spur an already depressed economy. Show me an example where that has worked. Hint: Don't use the EU as an example.

The private sector can't hire, if there is no demand, yet how do they get that, when no one's buying, because they are unemployed, get no UI, there are no jobs, and the poor can't, and even the middle class is getting there. Where is that demand going to come from? more cuts? Come on, now. The "job creators" have the lowest tax rates in American history now, yet where are the jobs? Or would you have us believe that they must get tax RETURNS before that happens. Some already are. I still see no jobs.

Government creates no jobs? Then by that assessment, there are no representatives (though for that one, there is some truth, but that's for another seed), senators, the presidency, and ALL the attendant jobs to those posts, the teachers, firefighters, cops, maintenance workers, etc.

Who exactly hired them?

Seems to me all the spending going on in these campaigns could pay for a lot. but where is it being spent? That money is coming from those precious "job creators."

I'm glad that President Obama is listening to those who actually know how an economy works, rather than those who are only coddling their benefactors.

Then by that assessment, there are no representatives (though for that one, there is some truth, but that's for another seed),

LOL...Agree

Tea hers, firefighter etc....those are state and local....same applies, but I'm just talking federal. Also, understand the math. If the federal government funds a job, whether in the public or private sector, then it is a net loss as it takes tax dollars to pay for it...on the average, 5 taxpaying private sector jobs to create one of those. That's the perpetual motion machine I was referring to. In short, the "reputable economists" are full of it. Government jobs in effect are "negative employment." once we realize this, we can solve one major part of then economic mess.

Again, I agree with you on all the BS with the tax code. See my previous posts for possible solutions to that mess. Either a Flat tax, a consumption tax or a combination of "use" and "head tax," will remove all the loopholes and thus greatly diminish the effect of lobbyists...at least as far as taxation. Regulation will still engender lobbying efforts.

I agree with you on defense spending...we can cut a lot of waste there. But we don't need to diminish capability. We still need to be able to deal with two MRC's and some smaller issue at the same time. You know that.

I sent you a private note regarding WMD.

Regard,

Mike

If you were there in first wave...like me, then you know we found weaponized chemicals and almost weaponized bio.

Since when can weaponized chemicals, and bios produce "A mushroom cloud over an American city"?

T-800, the only public announcement of WMD's found where weaponized artillery shells that were no longer viable as weapons as they had been in storage and let to rust for more than a decade. If they found more, then there would have been an announcement. There would be no point to keep classified information that justified the action in the first place.

The comment was bull@!$%#.

The fact is, governments cannot create real jobs. All a government can do or not do is make it harder and more costly for employers to hire additional employees.

That's a Teabagger myth and is disproved by history and how economies function today.

First, the European countries with the largest welfare states (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany) grew faster than the U.S. economy during what economists call the "American Renaissance" of the 1990s. Second, historically, the U.S. economy between 1950 and 1987, grew more slowly than every single European nation with a bigger welfare state than the U.S. Third, successful capitalist economies are mostly planned economies. "Indicative planning" is practiced by the world's healthiest economies, including our own from 1950 to 1973, when it grew at impressive rates. There's also "sectoral industrial policy" in which a government decides which sectors are of strategic importance to the economy and national security and grow those sectors by protecting them from foreign competition and through direct investment or subsidies. That strategy was fundamental to ascendancy of the U.S. as the hegemonic economic power. And of course, the fastest growing large economy in the world is the Chinese economy. Whaddya' think: does the Chinese government practice a hands-off approach to their economy, or do they pilot it?

There are also S.O.E.s (state owned enterprises) that are instrumental in the functioning of the world's most healthy economies, and government plans the activities of S.O.E.s.

In all developed economies, the government plans its technological future by funding R&D in chosen sectors.

Put simply, the belief that government jobs aren't real jobs is contradicted by both current reality and the historical record. That's why rightwingers and neo-liberals who advocate shrinking the federal government never present concrete examples of where such policies grew the economy. Instead they make blanket ludicrous comments like

"Government jobs in effect are "negative employment."

Saying it doesn't make it so.

mike,

My apologies, but your request I cannot satisfy. I suffer PTSD, and my condition is such, I not "talk shop", if you know what I mean. Again, my apologies.

The government jobs meant for economic stimuli would be construction, (ongoing, like rail, infrastructure, etc., which would be multi-decade, by the looks of the state of our infrastructure), and those services that have been either mismanaged or cut to the point where they do nothing for anyone. I also suggest cutting all those positions that are used by our "representatives, like 40 or so "aides" for some senators and congresspeople. 40+? if a representative needs that many, something is terribly wrong with the way they do their job.

However, It would make a great seed, if you put up for discussion, those chem/bio you saw. It would make an interesting read, I would think.

The tax code would be better served, if those who are being coddled now, paid their fair share. A flat tax is a boondoggle that would only enrich those who are already at the top, at the expense of everyone else. A consumption tax is an idea, but it would have to so low, that it's benefit would not really make a difference. besides, we already have that, in the form of state taxes, for those that have them.

We need to do one thing - get lobbying outlawed. Good and bad. Or at least restrict their influence, by creating a law by which "donations" are restricted to set amounts, that don't exceed $10. I think that's fair, don't you?

One need only look at the Marines. They do with what the other services no longer use. Only a small part of their overall budget is used for top-of-the-line equipment. All the services can be run that way (except for certain departments within the Navy and Air Force), without a drop in readiness. All the money spent on things the services don't need are what's bloating the defense budget, and that's where it should start, but we'll see what Panetta does with his newfound scissors.

Oh, yeah....Let's cut some from the CIA, too. Seems no one knows how much THEY spend.

Mike said:

Moreover, stimulus spending was an immoral illegal/unconstitutional use of federal dollars. There is no, repeat no moral basis to forcibly take money from one citizen and give it to another...period.

Actually--by most human ethical systems--you are dead wrong. The only value that a dollar has is that it represents a claim on someone's labor. That's the only value, and economists understand this deeply. It requires some thought.

When you support a system that concentrates wealth, you support a system that is essentially a slave society. The more dollars that are concentrated into the hands of a few, the more closely your society resembles a slave society (i.e., all workers must yield to the demands of the property owners, and the property owners control the government and its laws). This is very fundamental.

And this is why I believe that freedom absolutely depends upon a much more even redistribution of wealth among productive workers and owners. If this doesn't happen, genuine freedom disappears. Some of us happen to believe that human slavery--in any form--is immoral.

This is also why I reject and abhor modern American "conservatives." They only support property owners, aggregation of highly concentrated wealth, and further enslavement of the working class (ironically, because workers have little intrinsic ambition to control others, they themselves become controlled).

We are enmeshed in a very primitive and volatile economic/political system that invites uprisings and revolts.

capital gains tax...

hmm...something clicked...

I got it,

here, carlos, from 'Senate.Cop.gov':

http://www.senate.gov/general/search/search_cfm.cfm?q=capital+gains+tax&site=default_collection&num=10&filter=0&x=4&y=12

read on everybody.

and yet you completely derail what the point was with your 'constitutional obstructionism' crap.

and your tax ideas will just make the problems worse.

As for your 'corporate tax', when you invest on the stock market, you don't actually partake in the operation of the company, you are a silent investor, so the comment that they pay corporate tax is false, but most of the time what they do, they end up using transfer pricing as a way to bring their taxes down to 0 from a corporate viewpoint, then because of the hedge fund loophole, they end up paying only 15% on their corporate profits.

Seriously man, spent more than a decade in the financial industry, I know what they do.

As for my current situation, I net more money (relative) on the stock market than what I do in my company (which creates jobs) even though my profits on the stock market are less. Why? because taxes are skewed.

As far as companies not paying taxes, that is fine as long as companies NET NOTHING from the government. As long as companies benefit from government programs of any kind, they must also pay into the system. Anything else is yet again HYPOCRISY.

As far as companies not paying taxes, that is fine as long as companies NET NOTHING from the government. As long as companies benefit from government programs of any kind, they must also pay into the system.

Jon,

What you say above is impossible to do. There is NO way to make companies pay taxes. It just gets built into the price, which means consumers pay it. If you wish to tax corporate profits, then tax them when they are realized as dividends, that way the owners (shareholders) pay it.

Ant the comment that they pay corporate tax is not false. If they didn't pay that tax...ie "pre profit" then there would be more money for dividends. This is just math.

I agree with your "benefit from government program...." The government has no business helping or hindering business...except for those things businesses and people cannot do for themselves and are enumerated by the constitution.

There was no derailment...taxation and government spending both must adhere to constitutional principles. We could balance the budget today if we eliminated all the unconstitutional programs and agencies the Federal government is involved in.

Regards,

Mike

hmmm taxation has been brought to the supreme court several times, it IS MOST DEFINITELY CONSTITUTIONAL.

Now if you don't think it is, then TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT.

As long as companies benefit from government programs of any kind, they must also pay into the system

It isn't just programs they benefit from. Companies have the use of roads, water, sewer, gas, and electrcity infastructure which is subsidized by tax money. What about human resources? Without public education, they would not have quality employees to produce goods or services so they can make money.

TamL

Well as a company owner, I personally just look at income tax as another supplier of services, precisely for the reason you specify. The question isn't the level of taxation per se, but the level of services that we get for that taxation. If it wasn't for those government 'services', I wouldn't have a business, and only a very small part of my current company revenues come from government contracts.

Lamplighter

We have excellent new roads here in Mass. and I have experienced the same in N.Hampshire,most of the money was well spent.
And yes,for the record some of that money went astray.
Mostly by the RED boys who initially refused it.
Then spent it SOME WAY????

We have excellent new roads here in Mass. and I have experienced the same in N.Hampshire,

I'm sure that's the case. And now that the new roads are completed are the jobs still around?

...most of the money was well spent.

Most of the money was just spent period.

Oh the BOTHER....no one will notice...I should be quiet...

not true. they take in on average $250K

bacon,

Please elaborate...stats I saw show the top 1percent starting at about 350k, not 250. Was that what you were referring to?

Regards,

Mike

WSJ provides a handy calculator for this here. According to the "Definitions" link:

Income is defined as household, adjusted gross-income including other sources of income such as social security benefits and interest on municipal bonds.
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

Looks like incomes above $506,700 are the top 1 percent.

engineer,

Thanx mucho. Last number I had was 350k. 500k would make it more likely that a big part of the income was capital gains...or so it would seem.

Regards,

Mike

You're welcome Mike.

Ack, I edited this as my original comment was actually answered by my own previous post. Duh!

Lisa... then you need to shop at the 99 cent store. Me and the wife does. It is all the same. I can talk a few dollars and get a decent meal.

I don't eat GMO highly processed foods man which is all the dollar stores have. Also most grocery stores for the most part are almost totally GMO foods. My health is all I have right now. I refuse to eat that stuff.

The dollar stores have a lot of things just like the big stores. Don't knock it because you might one day be that person.

The dollar stores have a lot of things just like the big stores.

I know they do but what I am saying is I don't eat GMO foods the regular grocery stores have plenty of them too.

In case you did not know most processed food are GMO. If it has high fructose corn syrup or any soy products it is most likely GMO. I eat fresh foods and the dollar stores in my area do not have fresh foods . If your stomach hurts a lot or you are acid reflux disease you might want to check out how much soy and corn are in the foods you are eating. I have a corn allergy I I have to stay away from it as much as I possibly can or be sick all he time. I do no eat foods that are in a box except for stuff like pastas not pasta dinners though. If I try o eat that stuff I just loose my appetite and can't eat. My family stays on me about loosing weight but I can't afford to eat the foods that keep me heavier. Foods with a lot of chemicals taste terrible to me. I don't know how even hunger could make people eat it. I wish people would stop buying food that has no value cause that is the only way they will stop producing it. I realize that a lot of hunger is about nutrition and that is why some people over eat because they are not getting enough nutrients.

RON: Your medical analogy is right on point.I'm in the medical field and I can't tell you how many times a patient will come one day,a nd then come in the next,complaining that the medicine didn't work.How people expect to turn around a multi-trillion dollar economy in a few years after DECADES of mis-management is beyond me.

Any jobs are part of the answer,ANY JOBS,Sounds like you are of the LSC elite.

Cee COOL-And someone out there is sarced to vote for any one of these clowns'

I remain totally neutral,Huntsman remains feasable,IMO

Obama best...

Patriots ALL of them?...Come on America...Tarr and feather...WTF