Printable View
[QUOTE=Math2]The "growth" we are seeing now would not exist if Republicans didn't own the House.[/QUOTE]
The Republicans in Congress shut down the American Jobs Act which according to several agencies would've created 2-2.6 million jobs and added 1.5% in growth to the GDP. So the Republicans 'owning' the house has slowed down the economy significantly. If it's up to them, we'll see another deep recession.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The Republicans in Congress shut down the American Jobs Act which according to several agencies would've created 2-2.6 million jobs and added 1.5% in growth to the GDP. So the Republicans 'owning' the house has slowed down the economy significantly. If it's up to them, we'll see another deep recession.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. I'm sorry but that act was so full of pork I could hear the oinking from here. Thank God it didn't pass.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Bullshit. I'm sorry but that act was so full of pork I could hear the oinking from here. Thank God it didn't pass.[/QUOTE]
Don't take my word for it.
[QUOTE][B][U]An Analysis of the Obama Jobs Plan[/U][/B]
By Mark Zandi in West Chester
September 9, 2011
SHARETHIS
President Obama's jobs proposal would help stabilize confidence and keep the U.S. from sliding back into recession.
[B]The plan would add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point.[/B]
The plan would cost about $450 billion, about $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.
Many of the president's proposals are unlikely to pass Congress, but the most important have a chance of winning bipartisan support.
[url]http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=224641&src=mark-zandi[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B][U]A quick look at the job impact of the president’s proposals[/U][/B]
Posted September 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm by JOHN IRONS
Overall the package would increase employment by about 4.3 million jobs over the next couple of years. The new initiatives would boost employment by about 2.6 million jobs, while the continuation of the two temporary provisions (EUI and the payroll tax holiday) would prevent a backslide of over 1.6 million jobs.
[url]http://www.epi.org/blog/quick-job-impact-president%E2%80%99s-proposals/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B][U]American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment[/U][/B]
We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.
The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.
The program works directly to raise employment through tax incentives and support to state & local governments for increasing hiring; it works indirectly through the positive boost to aggregate demand (and hence hiring) stimulated by the direct spending and the increase in household income resulting from lower employee payroll taxes and increased employment.
[url]http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]–Based on our preliminary estimates, using the various multipliers, the fiscal lift to 2012 growth might be around 1.8 percentage-points, all else equal, from the “Jobs Act”. All in all, this program could potentially offset the expiring provisions coupled with the fiscal drag from the debt ceiling deal of roughly 1.5 percentage-points in total in 2012. –Thomas Lam, OSK-DMG
–President Obama’s jobs plan, if implemented, would boost employment by around 4.3 million jobs (yes, 1.6 million of those jobs would come from continuing temporary policies that are already in place and supporting the economy today, but the new initiatives alone would generate 2.6 million jobs). –Heidi Shierholz, Economic Policy Institute[/QUOTE]
The only reason it didn't pass is the same reason we might be dragged into another recession.
[QUOTE=Math2]It doesn't matter how you put it, you're discouraging success just like you discourage work when you give to the poor. That $1675000 you mentioned becomes less and less as welfare costs rise and rise and rise. It's unsustainable without having the rich pay upwards of 90% by 2050.[/QUOTE]
not everything is about growth.
social welfare appeals to an intuitive sense of fairness. if we truly believe in equal opportunity then curtailing intergenerational wealth transfer is necessary to achieve that goal. we all can agree that some people are born into luckier situations then other. If life was somehow a complete market in which people can take out insurance to hedge against the possibility of being born into a shitty situation, then people would do that. Wealth redistribution is but an ex post expression of that insurance.
[QUOTE=Droid101]:roll:
This old canard? Taxes are lower for rich people than any time in our history. Give us one good reason why their rates can't go back to Clinton levels (the same time we had our last economic boon). Go on, one reason.[/QUOTE]
Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?
[QUOTE=joe]Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?[/QUOTE]
Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.
[QUOTE=joe]Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country. :facepalm
[QUOTE=joe]Taxes are lower for the rich than at any time in our history? Does that include the first 125 years, when we didn't have an income tax at all?[/QUOTE]
lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.
i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm
[QUOTE=Droid101]Yeah, because the 1800's are totally relevant and comparable to the past 112 years of existing in this country. :facepalm[/QUOTE]
True. I don't think they had a shot clock back then.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Good point. The sad thing about vilifying the rich and essentially holding them responsible for the deficit is that it won't solve anything. Even if you took 100% of the income of all the millionaires and billionaires in this country (something all the Karl Marx clones on this board probably want) it wouldn't make a significant dent in the deficit.[/QUOTE]
how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....
one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.
[QUOTE=Godzuki]lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.
i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm[/QUOTE]
I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.
[QUOTE=Godzuki]how wouldn't it solve anything? the more money the government collects the more goes towards paying off our deficit....
one things for sure, they aren't going to pay the deficit off by not taxing anyone.[/QUOTE]
No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.
Spending is another issue and sadly I don't think congress will ever get it right. There's such an entrenched habit of attaching pork projects to bills on both sides of the aisle that I don't see it ever getting any better. I hope I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]I think his point was a little tongue-in-cheek jab. Still the US was able to win wars and provide mail service, etc. without taxing what the citizens earned. Totally unsustainable in today's world but worth remembering, especially since "government" and "efficiency" are 2 words that don't go hand in hand nowadays.[/QUOTE]
nah its consistent with a lot of stuff Joe says that aren't very applicable to the current reality, but its the same with some of the stuff Ron Paul says as well. i don't think its tongue n cheek more than what they believe.
there is a lot more infrastructure to upkeep now, a much larger population, way more civil/domestic issues where comparing old times to now isn't realistic. our government isn't efficient and bloated which i think both parties know, but its not like there aren't issues everywhere else as well, like the rich vs poor gap constantly widening.
[QUOTE=Godzuki]lol are you really going to talk about times when people were riding horses through towns, playign cowboys and indians, and our government or infrastructure was nowhere near what its at today? never mind how much more of a civilized society we are today thanks to government programs and law enforcement to create order from the chaos of earlier civilizations.
i swear you independents always hearken back to some unrealistic stuff to constantly use as examples for us to live by today :facepalm[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's the same faulty reasoning some use to justify our antiquated gun laws. 'I need these guns to fight against tyranny' like they're going to gather muskets to join a militia to fight against the King of England and it's the 18th century :lol
Times change and society has to adapt accordingly.
[QUOTE= rufuspaul]No. The way to raise revenue is to get people back to work. Specifically promote policies that are favorable to small business and encourage investment. You can raise taxes to a degree and certainly reform the idiotic code, but that alone won't really solve the problem.[/QUOTE]
But the President has made it clear that tax reform/increase is just the first step, a necessary step. He laid out his spending reduction plan which included less borrowing, entitlements, etc. The idea is that the House approves the Senate bill that would raise taxes on 2% of the population, the President signs it into law, then the two sides get together to hammer out a spending reduction deal.
And right on cue, the weeper of the house throws a ridiculous wrench into the game :facepalm
[INDENT][B][U]Boehner: Obamacare on table for 'fiscal cliff' talks[/U][/B]
[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/08/02/t1larg.boehner.jpg[/IMG]
(CNN)
Finally, some real progress :applause:
[INDENT][B][U]White House says Boehner offered tax increase for entitlement cuts[/U][/B]
[B](Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has offered to raise tax rates on high earners to break the "fiscal cliff" deadlock in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs, but President Barack Obama is not ready to accept, a source said late Saturday.[/B]
While the White House considers Boehner's offer "progress," the source said more remained to be worked out between the two.
Tax rates are a major sticking point in negotiations to avert steep automatic tax hikes and budget cuts set for the end of the year if a deal isn't reached. Republicans have resisted Obama's demand to extend lower tax rates for everyone except top earners, preferring to extend them for all taxpayers.
The Boehner offer was the first departure from the position the House speaker has held for months.
(Editing by Fred Barbash and Todd Eastham)
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/16/us-usa-fiscal-boehner-idUSBRE8BF01I20121216[/url][/INDENT]
*Obama is 'not ready to accept' because Boehner wants the cut off to be those earning $1 mil+ instead of $250K and they haven't released info on the rate increase proposed. But the fact the Boehner is willing to go against the Norquist pledge is a major breakthrough IMO. Now it's just about the details since the House Republican leader has agreed to rate increases and the President has put entitlements on the table.
Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.
[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.[/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]Why?[/QUOTE]
Because all it would really do is shift the burden of that cost onto seniors age 65-67 by forcing them to pay for private (and more expensive) health insurance. It would be a way for the federal government to cut spending but is that really the spending that should be cut? If anything, that spending is the most social beneficial thing the government does.
We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm
[QUOTE=knickballer]We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm[/QUOTE]
Didn't Obama already sign into law $1 trillion in spending cuts last year (haven't gone into effect yet). I think they included cuts to military spending.
[QUOTE=knickballer]We all know what spending needs to be cut, it's the big elephant standing in the corner of the room but yet none of them will even mention it.. But instead we have clowns debating on cutting welfare programs or education to cut spending :facepalm[/QUOTE]
CBS? [COLOR="White"] trololol[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Haven't been following the fiscal cliff stuff lately but raising the Medicare age to 67 would be a really bad idea imo. That's the only policy change that I've seen discussed heavily.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm Taxes, perhaps?
e[QUOTE=Math2]:facepalm Taxes, perhaps?[/QUOTE]
I meant as far as specific spending cuts. Obviously taxes have been discussed endlessly.
We need to extend the tax cuts only for income below $400,000 or $500,000 for the current time. After the economy stabilizes a little better, we need to let all of the tax cuts expire.
[url]http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20121219_ap_obamasocialsecurityofferatoddswithtopdems.html[/url]
Obama puts SS on the table. Libs are mad. :lol
[QUOTE=longhornfan1234][url]http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20121219_ap_obamasocialsecurityofferatoddswithtopdems.html[/url]
Obama puts SS on the table. Libs are mad. :lol[/QUOTE]
It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.[/QUOTE]
That's how I feel as well.
Nancy Pelosi said she can "sell" Obama's SS plan to Democrats in the House.
Obama and head Dems are making progress. :applause:
[QUOTE=rufuspaul]It should be on the table. It's not a sustainable system. In preparing for my own retirement I've always worked under the assumption that Social Security won't be around by then.[/QUOTE]
It would be around for 75+ years more if we just took the cap off... right now SS tax is regressive and regressive taxes are pretty stupid.
Just In
Cantor ~ GOP will have the votes to pass 'Plan B'
[url]http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/20/16044470-cantor-gop-will-have-the-votes-to-pass-plan-b?lite[/url]
The No. 2 House Republican said Thursday that the GOP would have the votes to pass its "Plan B" solution to the fiscal cliff, and urged the Democratic Senate to follow suit.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said that Republicans intended to follow through with their vote to pass a pair of bills which would preserve tax rates on income less than $1 million and approve new spending cuts in place of the automatic cuts -- many to defense -- set to take effect on Jan. 1.
Absent a balanced option from the president, this is our nation's best option," Cantor told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"And Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures immediately."
President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation; it is virtually dead-on-arrival in the Senate, where Democrats oppose the proposal.
With less than 12 days until the tax hikes and spending cuts which compose the "fiscal cliff" will snap into place, Republicans remain locked in a stalemate with Obama over the extent of the expiring tax rates they should extend, as well as how deep of cuts should be made -- and to which programs.
Boehner is such a clown. The guy wasted precious time with his plan b (the b is short for bullshit) and he couldn't even get the necessary vote from his own party. Instead of taking a hint from his own party, like he's failed to do with the electorate, I'm sure this goof will find another way to waste more time instead of doing the right thing.
Nm.
this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.
when will his set drop? :facepalm
[QUOTE=Rasheed1]this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.
when will his set drop? :facepalm[/QUOTE]
Obama is not a leader of men.
I like this idea by Tyler Cowen a lot:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/business/in-fiscal-debate-a-little-symbolism-may-go-a-long-way.html?_r=0[/url]
I like the idea of raising Medicare to 67. The so-called spending cut offer being tossed around is deceptive and refers to cutting the increase in spending, which isn't good enough, imo.
[QUOTE=Rasheed1]this is a little off the subject, but Obama is such a f*ckin chump for not nominating either Rice or Chuck Hagel. GOP keeps having a fit, and Obama keeps caving. Everyone knows why they are doing it and he just caves anyway.[/QUOTE]
Nominating Rice after Benghazi would have been inappropriate and insulting. I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't do it.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I like the idea of raising Medicare to 67. The so-called spending cut offer being tossed around is deceptive and refers to cutting the increase in spending, which isn't good enough, imo.[/quote]
I think thats a terrible idea. Those people are getting thousands of dollars taken out of their pockets when you move the retirement age.
there are plenty of other "oxes to gore" without offering up the people on medicare first.
Plus Obama won the election and the majority of people in the country (including republicans) are opposed to medicare cuts
there is no need to go there right now.
[quote]Nominating Rice after Benghazi would have been inappropriate and insulting. I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't do it.[/QUOTE]
That doesnt make any sense...
Condaleeza Rice told bigger more important lies on a regular basis.
Susan Rice was qualified for the job, and she wasnt reason for the break down. The GOP only plays these juvenile games because they want to open up a seat for scott brown in the senate.
Its totally political and Obama is bargaining with the GOP when they have no leverage and no clout
Obama is dumb for caving to GOP.
It makes all the more ridiculous when republicans pretend he is some left wing marxist :oldlol:
The guy is trying to capitulate, but the republicans wont let him :facepalm
[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I like this idea by Tyler Cowen a lot:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/business/in-fiscal-debate-a-little-symbolism-may-go-a-long-way.html?_r=0[/url][/QUOTE]
Yes, people need to be aware that in 5 years or a decade down the road that taxes will need to be much higher. Borrowing cost will also increase during the same time period but that is a different discussion.
With that being said is the current system efficient or effective in collecting tax revenue?? For example, I would like to see higher consumption rates and off set partially by personal income tax cuts. People would actually have a choice in whether they would spend, invest, or save.
However, not to contradict my first statement, people should accept that the low tax era of the last decade and a half needs to end if they are serious about slaying the deficit.
[QUOTE=Rasheed1]I think thats a terrible idea. Those people are getting thousands of dollars taken out of their pockets when you move the retirement age.
there are plenty of other "oxes to gore" without offering up the people on medicare first.
Plus Obama won the election and the majority of people in the country (including republicans) are opposed to medicare cuts
there is no need to go there right now.[/QUOTE]
67 isn't particularly old these days, I think it makes sense. I'm not saying it should be the first priority by any stretch, though.
[QUOTE]That doesnt make any sense...
Condaleeza Rice told bigger more important lies on a regular basis.
Susan Rice was qualified for the job, and she wasnt reason for the break down. The GOP only plays these juvenile games because they want to open up a seat for scott brown in the senate.
Its totally political and Obama is bargaining with the GOP when they have no leverage and no clout
Obama is dumb for caving to GOP.
It makes all the more ridiculous when republicans pretend he is some left wing marxist :oldlol:
The guy is trying to capitulate, but the republicans wont let him :facepalm[/QUOTE]
I don't see why nominate Rice, there are qualified people without the baggage. Going all over TV and telling blatant lies is not something I think should be ignored. I would have seen a nomination for Rice as nothing more than a f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]ck you to the Republicans. Why her right after Benghazi? The nomination never made sense to me. Obama often comes off as arrogant to me so I was expecting him to do it, but I'm happy he didn't.