U.S. Politics

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Scott SoCal said:
Regardless of what the truth is, the R nominee will be able to say that the economy would be in much worse shape had the Bush tax cut NOT been extended. And, I believe, rightly so.
I think that is a popular view among those with a) a vested interest in the Bush tax cuts for the highest income tax brackets and b) those who do not fall in the first category but have at best a superficial understanding of the economy.

If you fall into the former category, congratulations. If you fall into the latter, not so much.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
You must have more money then you let on.

There's virtually no difference in economic growth or tax revenue between someone in the upper .1% buying up 100 houses, and 100 of his employees buying one house each. But I guess in your world the boss deserves it all, all of it, while the serf's deserve what they get, even if it's nothing?

Furthermore, you didn't even address my point, you just skirted it. Do you truly believe that if there's a large tax cut, or large profits, that regardless of demand, owners and upper management at companies will hire more people and give them better benefits, instead of just hoarding the money for themselves?
you are wrong about the bolded part. there are HUGE economic growth and tax differences. i don't have time for a detailed explanation, but if you think about it, you will see that 100 people buying 100 houses would have a massively greater economic effects.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
My best guess is your boss will hire when necessary. He or she likely will not overstaff unless there is a belief in doing so will position your company for coming growth opportunities.
Scott SoCal said:
Regardless of what the truth is, the R nominee will be able to say that the economy would be in much worse shape had the Bush tax cut NOT been extended. And, I believe, rightly so.
Scott, in the first post you quoted, you imply that the Bush tax cuts for the rich do nothing for job growth, which I agree with. Hiring will only be driven by market demand, and I would argue that putting more money into the pockets of the middle class would do more to increase that demand.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose McKnuckles said:
I think that is a popular view among those with a) a vested interest in the Bush tax cuts for the highest income tax brackets and b) those who do not fall in the first category but have at best a superficial understanding of the economy.

If you fall into the former category, congratulations. If you fall into the latter, not so much.
Study tax receipts much? I do.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
Scott, in the first post you quoted, you imply that the Bush tax cuts for the rich do nothing for job growth, which I agree with. Hiring will only be driven by market demand, and I would argue that putting more money into the pockets of the middle class would do more to increase that demand.

Just curious, who are the middle class? How are they defined?

It's not a trick question.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose McKnuckles said:
If you meant "dilute", your language skills need help.

But then, we both know you meant "delude" and you're just embarrassed and trying to cover it up. No problem. It just adds to the humor.

Glad I was able to make you smile.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Just curious, who are the middle class? How are they defined?

It's not a trick question.
When most people say "middle class", they seem to mean "middle income".

There is no standard definition of middle class, which is why politicians use it. People in all sorts of financial positions think politicians are talking about them. It's just an example of using ambiguity to appeal to a broader swath of people.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Alpe, really? My best guess is your boss will hire when necessary. He or she likely will not overstaff unless there is a belief in doing so will position your company for coming growth opportunities.
Not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the argument is that if given a tax cut, businesses will use that savings to hire people. I say they won't, much at all. I say most employers keep the money themselves.

I should also differentiate between the tiniest of "employers" like your local curio shop, corner sandwich shop, wedding photographer, landscaper, etc. and companies like Exxon or Pepsi, etc. But I will stick to my above paragraph at all.

I also said there was no difference between a business owner buying 100 houses for himelf, and his employees getting paid so much that 100 of them are now able to buy houses.

gregod said:
you are wrong...there are HUGE economic growth and tax differences. i don't have time for a detailed explanation, but if you think about it, you will see that 100 people buying 100 houses would have a massively greater economic effects.
You're probably correct. But I was trying to be conservative in my estimate in regards to my disagreement with Scott and his statement several posts ago.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose McKnuckles said:
When most people say "middle class", they seem to mean "middle income".

There is no standard definition of middle class, which is why politicians use it. People in all sorts of financial positions think politicians are talking about them. It's just an example of using ambiguity to appeal to a broader swath of people.

Humor me. Your definition of a middle class worker is ___________ in income ( or income range if you prefer).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So this is a "positive"?

In a nation still soured on bailouts, the government owns more than a quarter of GM. The Treasury Department estimates the government will lose more than $23 billion on the auto bailout: GM is trading at $24 a share, well below the $53-per-share mark needed for the government to recoup its investment in the company.
Romney, facing attacks from Democrats on his work at private-equity firm Bain Capital, has tried to use the GM and Chrysler cases to insulate himself against charges his firm gutted companies and fired workers. "How did you do when you were running General Motors as the president?" Romney said in a December debate. "Gee, you closed down factories. You closed down dealerships. And he'll say, well I did that to save the business. Same thing with us, Mr. President."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/obama-hopes-to-ride-auto-bailout-to-reelection/1

Real unemployment is 10% (CBO)

But here is the kicker: "Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent" translation: CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%.
Interesting tidbits right here...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/latest-congressional-budget-outlook-2012-2022-released
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey, lookey here. Should make most here happy;)


CBO: Taxes Will ‘Shoot Up by More Than 30 Percent’ Over Next 2 Years

The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.
At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”
And, finally, the legacy of Barack Obama;

"
The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years,” said CBO. “That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and especially next. Although CBO projects that growth will pick up after 2013, the agency expects that the economy’s output will remain below its potential until 2018 and that the unemployment rate will remain above 7 percent until 2015.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-taxes-will-shoot-more-30-percent-over-next-2-years
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Humor me. Your definition of a middle class worker is ___________ in income ( or income range if you prefer).
"Middle class" was probably the wrong term; I should have said anyone but the wealthy. Who I am referring to are the people who, if they received an extra $100 in their paycheck, would spend it, be that at a local restaurant, hardware store, clothing store, cafe etc. etc. etc....... I'm not sure of the exact income level (probably depends on where they live), but for the purposes of this argument, those that earn less than $150k or families that earn less than $300k.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
"Middle class" was probably the wrong term; I should have said anyone but the wealthy. Who I am referring to are the people who, if they received an extra $100 in their paycheck, would spend it, be that at a local restaurant, hardware store, clothing store, cafe etc. etc. etc....... I'm not sure of the exact income level (probably depends on where they live), but for the purposes of this argument, those that earn less than $150k or families that earn less than $300k.

Thanks. That's pretty close to where I would describe the middle as well.

However, this is not who the dems typically are talking about. Families at or near $300k will get a tax increase. Guaranteed.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And, finally, the legacy of Barack Obama;
The guy's only had three years to clean up the ungodly mess created by the last batch of conservative Republicans. Jeez, give him some time before you vote in the next batch to screw things up again.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You realize how monumentally unpopular Obamacare is?
Monumentally? Maybe in the right-wing echo chamber, but here in the real world it's becoming more and more popular as people start to understand it better.

http://news.yahoo.com/health-reform-law-gaining-wider-acceptance-poll-140405876.html

Where you can fault Obama is in not explaining it more thoroughly and more clearly. Ironically the most unpopular part of the Act is the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Sullivan:

Everything this man says is a lie. He's doubling down on the big lies I tried to counter in that Newsweek piece. The president Romney is describing does not exist. Obama is demonizing and denigrating every sector of the economy? That is a pure lie. As is the repeated lie that Obama is an appeaser. Has Romney understood what has happened to the Iranian economy these past few months? Does he think Osama bin Laden thinks he was appeased? Let me just say right now: this [Romney's] speech is the most dishonest, manipulative, disgusting series of lies I've heard in a very long time. And its core premise: that the president hates this country, whereas Romney believes in it. As I said: disgusting. I'm with Newt on this. The man will say anything to gain power.
And that's the main reason Romney won't win - right now, his opponents aren't calling him on those lies, but that will change in the general. But that's all he's got to run on - lying about Obama.
 
There's still a long way to go. And anyone who thinks the entire economic debacle is the fault of only Bush or only Obama sees the world with blinders on.

A great deal of the campaign is going to be not whomever gets more blame, as much as whomever can convince people that their plan is better to somehow get us out of this mess, because so far I think most people think both the Republicans and Democrats have screwed everything up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Monumentally? Maybe in the right-wing echo chamber, but here in the real world it's becoming more and more popular as people start to understand it better.

http://news.yahoo.com/health-reform-law-gaining-wider-acceptance-poll-140405876.html

Where you can fault Obama is in not explaining it more thoroughly and more clearly. Ironically the most unpopular part of the Act is the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea.
Yes. We have to vote for the bill to find out what's in it.

Funny, the SOTU was just a few weeks ago. It was essentially a campaign stop. The signature piece of legislation, the pinnacle of Obama's accomplishments was, uh, discussed in detail? Not so much.

What does that tell you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Sullivan:

And that's the main reason Romney won't win - right now, his opponents aren't calling him on those lies, but that will change in the general. But that's all he's got to run on - lying about Obama.
You simply are not paying attention.

Obama campaigned on an economy the worst since the great depression. Then got to office and put policies in place that was supposed to produce a result that still has not happened. Then he puts forth the excuse that the economy is worse that they thought. This is a lie.

Candidate Obama railed on Bush for the national debt of 10 Trillion. He called it unpatriotic. Tell me, where are we now? Will the debt be better or worse by November? Will it still be unpatriotic or is that only when a repub runs up debt?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
There's still a long way to go. And anyone who thinks the entire economic debacle is the fault of only Bush or only Obama sees the world with blinders on.

A great deal of the campaign is going to be not whomever gets more blame, as much as whomever can convince people that their plan is better to somehow get us out of this mess, because so far I think most people think both the Republicans and Democrats have screwed everything up.
Agree with every word. Well said.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Candidate Obama railed on Bush for the national debt of 10 Trillion. He called it unpatriotic. Tell me, where are we now? Will the debt be better or worse by November? Will it still be unpatriotic or is that only when a repub runs up debt?
The two biggest factors that have driven up the deficit are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. Both of which were initiated under Bush.

Obama has tried to roll back the Bush tax cuts. He's pulled out of Iraq. He's put the war costs on the books, rather than in supplemental budgets, as Bush did to hide their true effects on the deficit.

You do understand all this, do you not? The deficit can only rise if tax receipts go down and costs do not fall. The stimulus spending clearly did not go far enough, even though the wingnuts think we shouldn't have spent anything. This was necessary to do after the mess in which this country found itself in 2008.

Look at some point, you people on the right wing need to pick up an economics book. If you want to debate Keynes vs. Hayek, you actually have to know something about them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Moose McKnuckles said:
The two biggest factors that have driven up the deficit are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. Both of which were initiated under Bush.

Obama has tried to roll back the Bush tax cuts. He's pulled out of Iraq. He's put the war costs on the books, rather than in supplemental budgets, as Bush did to hide their true effects on the deficit.

You do understand all this, do you not? The deficit can only rise if tax receipts go down and costs do not fall. The stimulus spending clearly did not go far enough, even though the wingnuts think we shouldn't have spent anything. This was necessary to do after the mess in which this country found itself in 2008.

Look at some point, you people on the right wing need to pick up an economics book. If you want to debate Keynes vs. Hayek, you actually have to know something about them.
Bush tax cuts and the wars
You don't look at tax receipt data, do you? If you did you would know better.

The wars have without a doubt been devastating on the debt. We are still in one, there was Libya, etc... has foreign policy changed enough for you and the libs to continue along this line of "blame Bush"?

Obama has tried to roll back the Bush tax cuts
My turn to smile. From December, 2010;

Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts

Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase.

"In fact, not only will middle class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it's larger than the one they get right now," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html

The deficit can only rise if tax receipts go down and costs do not fall. The stimulus spending clearly did not go far enough,
Do you not see the irony in this?

The tax receipts ebb and flow. The spending NEVER goes down. Somehow, the Feds just can't do with less than the year before no matter what the revenue is.

Look at some point, you people on the right wing need to pick up an economics book.
Nope. We are all dumb as dirt over here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY