Poll: Disapproval of Congress hits all-time high

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Poll: Disapproval of Congress hits all-time high

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Americans have looked disapprovingly at their representatives in Congress for decades. But it's never been this bad.

In the wake of the hard-fought debt limit debate, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job - the highest disapproval rating since polling began in 1977. Just 14 percent approve of Congress' performance.

The uptick in frustration comes after Congress narrowly avoided an economic catastrophe of its own making by failing to hammer out a deal to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit until the deadline for action. And neither side was happy with the outcome: Conservatives said the final deal, which is projected to cut around $2.5 trillion over ten years from a projected $24 trillion debt, didn't go far enough; liberals complained that the initial deficit reduction came entirely in the form of spending cuts, not revenue increases as Democrats initially demanded.

Meanwhile, the stock market has plummeted in the wake of the deal, dropping more than 500 points Thursday.

The survey, taken on August 2nd and 3rd - immediately after the deal was reached - found Americans more frustrated with congressional Republicans than their Democratic counterparts when it came to the negotiations.

That's not to say congressional Democrats have much to crow about. Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of their handling of the debt ceiling debate; just 28 percent approve.

But Republicans fare worse: Seventy-two percent of Americans disapprove of their performance during the debt ceiling debate, while just 21 percent approve.

And Republicans get most of the blame for the standoff. Forty-seven percent blame Republicans in Congress, while 29 percent blame President Obama and congressional Democrats; 20 percent say both are to blame.

A majority of Americans - 52 percent - says Republicans in Congress compromised too little in the debate. Fewer - 34 percent - say Democrats, including President Obama, compromised too little. Republicans were more likely to think members of their party compromised too little (34 percent) than to say they compromised too much (26 percent).

By contrast, Democrats were more likely to think members of their party compromised too much (41 percent) rather than too little (20 percent). Overall, 26 percent say Democrats compromised too much in the negotiations; just 15 percent say the same of Republicans.

Continued...

CBS news

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The republicans piss me off

The republicans piss me off for flat out obstructionism and lying. The democrats piss me off for thinking they could work with the republicans.

And now the republicans are trying to flat out lie about the S&P downgrade blaming it on Obama. The dept limit has been raised BY EVERY FUCKING PRESIDENT. Reagan did it 18 times. Bringing it up this time was a tactic merely to get Obama out of office. It had nothing to do with republicans giving one shit about our dept.

If republicans had never made this an issue and the dept limit had been raised, this wouldn't have happened.

Our dept could be easly solved by rolling back the tax cuts and closing loopholes and cut defense spending.

This is nothing but gang warfare on the republicans part.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
If "Pro" is the opposite of

If "Pro" is the opposite of "Con", then isn't Congress the opposite of Progress?

 

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm just glad more people

I'm just glad more people are realizing the whole thing is fucked up, both sides are packed with people who do not have anyone but their own best interests at heart.

The only difference in how each party is fucking up is by method and in some instances even that is the same.

Our government is fine it's the lifelong politicians in it we the people have elected who are screwing things up for the majority.

We are working for a new minority class, the politicians.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:If "Pro"

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If "Pro" is the opposite of "Con", then isn't Congress the opposite of Progress?

 

 

 


 

Yea

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 What is the point of

 What is the point of having a debt limit, if you ignore it? Congress is like the gambling addict that goes into a casino, says they will limit themselves to $1000, loses and then takes a cash advance on their credit card for another $1000, and again and again.....

 

Granted, the republicans have their share of blame. It was Bush and a republican congress that turned a surplus back into a deficit of almost 500 billion. But the spending of the last few years dwarfs those deficits. We are spending $1.5 trillion per year more than we have coming in. In comparison, the "massive" Bush tax cuts were $1 trillion OVER TEN FUCKING YEARS. Our spending is a problem and no one is serious about solving it. Even the plans coming from the republicans are drops in the bucket that do nothing to solve the financial stability of our government. 

 

We are running out of money. If you want all these government programs, fine, but you have to find a way to pay for them. Running up these massive debts will destroy our economy, and everyone knows it. They just don't want to be the "bad guys" by doing what needs to be done by either cutting spending or raising taxes. They are a bunch of fucking cowards who ought to have their sorry asses thrown out of office. Until someone comes out with a plan that actually balances the budget within a few years, there isn't a single incumbent who deserves to be there. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, let me get some terms defined:

 

Deficit: More money is going out than is coming in.

 

Surplus: more money is coming in than is going out.

 

Debt: the consequence of deficit spending.

 

Get that much understood and you will have a better picture of what is actually happening. We have been running a debt since the mid 60's and nobody in either party has been willing to deal with that.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, let me get some terms defined:

 

Deficit: More money is going out than is coming in.

 

Surplus: more money is coming in than is going out.

 

Debt: the consequence of deficit spending.

 

Get that much understood and you will have a better picture of what is actually happening. We have been running a debt since the mid 60's and nobody in either party has been willing to deal with that.

 

 

 

Yea but since the 60s we had at least one president who balanced the budget and gave us a surplus. What we cannot do now is hurt those who are the weakest by cutting entitlements.

No one is saying the dept is a good thing long term. But you DONT cut spending during a recession because that puts MORE people out of work. You get people back to work to bring more money in THEN you cut spending during the recovery when the economy is good.

And you certainly DONT give tax breaks to companies who at best create crappy paying jobs but mostly send them overseas.

Any reduction is going to have to include raising revenue.

What is going on today is the exact same economic behavior that lead to the great depression. It is the stupid idea on the republicans part that if we just go back to the "every man for themselves" wild west economic days before the age of regulation that lead to the depression, everything will be fine.

You wont get any sympathy from me trying to suggest that we pay off the dept off the backs of the middle class and poor when the fat cats were the ones who put us in this mess in the first place.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Banks and Wall Street have

Banks and Wall Street have to start caring about more than their CEOs and shareholders. They need to stop treating our economy like a Vegas casino. Those at the top need to pay their share. Drug company and insurance company monopolies need to be broken up.

I have seen to many bubbles in the past 30 years by corporate America dumped on the tax payers to buy any fucking lie that the middle class and poor are lazy and to blame.

Again, for anyone to claim "less government good" HAS TO COME WITH RESPONSIBILITY and those at the top are treating everyone else as their personal piggy bank and dump their mistakes on the rest of us.

If those at the top don't want the others asking for government help, then dont be so fucking greedy and give DIRECTLY back to your workers so they don't turn to government. But the government is not of the rich for the rich and by the rich.

THE RICH have caused this mess because they don't give on rats ass about anything except profit.

Now here come the "your a commie" responses. NO, an open market and healthy market depend on responsibility and I haven't seen a damned thing from the top that SHOWS me that they have been responsible. They have been robbing the rest of us and dumping their losses on us, and then they have the fucking nerve to ask the rest of us to take a hit.

I have had enough of the lies that it is our fault and if we just become the slave labor they masturbate over, we can recover.

I do not want our workforce to end up with the same wage gaps of India and China to compete. I do not want this country ruled by one class, which it unfortunately is. But I am not fooled by the bullshit "It's your fault because you are poor" lie that the republicans sell.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea but since

Brian37 wrote:

Yea but since the 60s we had at least one president who balanced the budget and gave us a surplus. What we cannot do now is hurt those who are the weakest by cutting entitlements.

Sort of. The budget was balanced by raiding the social security fund, so money that was supposed to be saved for social security recipients was used to make it look like we were running a surplus. Which is why social security is running out of money faster than it should. Kind of like taking money out of your 401k and claiming that you balanced your personal budget. You did.... but at the cost of reducing your retirement. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No one is saying the dept is a good thing long term. But you DONT cut spending during a recession because that puts MORE people out of work. You get people back to work to bring more money in THEN you cut spending during the recovery when the economy is good.

Complete bullshit. We spent a trillion in "stimulus", where are the jobs? Government is not stellar at creating jobs. The government only has money three ways, they tax and therefore take money away from the private sector, or it borrows money thereby increasing our debt (which will have to be paid off by taxes in the future), or it prints money and monetizes the debt, which leads to very undesirable consequences. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Any reduction is going to have to include raising revenue.

Very possibly. I would be happy to see a plan that seriously approaches our debt problems. Right now the only one has been Rand Paul's plan and everyone calls him "crazy". http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf It balances the budget within 5 years without affecting your precious entitlements. Well, if you don't like his plan, where is your counter proposal? The democrats haven't come out with a public plan because the tax increases required at the current level of spending would be extreme and simply taxing the "rich" wouldn't be enough (you could confiscate 100% of the income from the rich and still not close the deficit). The middle class would have to be substantially affected as well. And that is before we even talk about trying to retire some of the debt. I would be open to supporting a plan that had some tax increases, if the plan was serious about solving the problem. Right now, that plan doesn't exist, no one has come up with it. (IMO, Pauls budget is way to meek. There is no reason we can't balance the budget next year. $2.5 trillion is a lot of money, our government should be able to do its job on that, especially if we get our asses out of Afghanistan)

 

Brian37 wrote:

What is going on today is the exact same economic behavior that lead to the great depression. It is the stupid idea on the republicans part that if we just go back to the "every man for themselves" wild west economic days before the age of regulation that lead to the depression, everything will be fine.

$3.8 trillion in government spending is "every man for themselves"? What fucking delusional world are you living in. Our government is spending more than it ever has, we have more social programs, more pork, more "stimulus", more government employees and more regulations than ever, count the fucking pages. And where did that get you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You wont get any sympathy from me trying to suggest that we pay off the dept off the backs of the middle class and poor when the fat cats were the ones who put us in this mess in the first place.

We are all screwed if we don't do something about the debt. It isn't just the rich that are going to face the consequences. It is precisely your attitude of us vs. them that is preventing any kind of rational discussion of how to get out of our situation. Pointing fingers and blaming isn't doing any good, especially since there aren't any blameless parties around. We are on a sinking ship and yelling at each other about who's fault it is that we hit the iceberg isn't going to patch the hole or provide lifeboats. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 And entitlement programs

 And entitlement programs are going to be a problem, but they are NOT the problem right now. Both medicare and social security are mostly paying for themselves at this moment in time. It is all the other government spending that is the real problem. So all these politicians talking about how entitlement reform is so important right now are flat out wrong. We have about 20 years before entitlements become a major budget problem. It would be a good idea to do something about it, but reforming entitlements isn't going to solve our immediate problems. 

 

Reforming entitlements is also extremely easy. Simply make them into welfare programs. There is no reason millionaires should receive social security and medicare. Means test the programs, so that only those who truly need them get them. Period. Problem solved.

 

I was talking to a nice old lady while playing poker yesterday and she was telling me about how her and her husband are retired and travel around the world. Her husband made a good living as a business owner and now they are traveling and enjoying the benefits. She was a nice lady, but she sure as hell doesn't need social security. I doubt she would even notice if the check didn't come in the mail. Why are we giving government handouts to people who don't need them when our government is out of money? That is simply insane.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian37 wrote:
Now here come the "your a commie" responses.

 

 

Fallacy of preemption much?

 

Really, I find it annoying when there are arrogant pricks like Warren Buffet who manipulates the law so that it looks like he doesn't even have taxable income but still seem t have enough cash to try and screw with federal elections. That is not acceptable behavior and something should be done about it.

 

However, the whole soak the rich thing borders on ignorance. Really, what is the definition of rich?

 

I suppose that if someone has enough money that paying people to manipulate the tax code for them probably counts as rich but, are there enough of those people that we could meaningfully get anything done by stripping them of all of their money? I would think that there are computer models that would answer that.

 

More to the point though, what kind of a world do you want to live in? One where the price of success is that everything you work for can be taken by greedy people who did not work to be a success? I don't get it, why would anyone even try to be a success in such a world?

 

Honestly, I hope that you never end up needing a talented surgeon. However, if you do, please make it clear before he start to cut you that you think that everything he has spent his life on should be compensated at the same rate as a dish washer in a third rate restaurant.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The credit downgrade is a

The credit downgrade is a good thing. Since the goverment can't stop borrowing or pass a balanced amendment, the lenders are the ones that are finally going to put a stop to the madness. We saw from the mortage crisis that easy credit is not such a good thing.

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about losing your credit rating. I don't give a shit what my credit score is, I don't plan on ever borowing money ever again. Credit scores are for people that are will to be slaves to banks and credit companies. People lend you money because they want to make a profit on you.

I don't understand why conservatives are upset about our credit being ruined, it's the equivent of a balanced budget amendment.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: No one is

Brian37 wrote:

 

No one is saying the dept is a good thing long term. But you DONT cut spending during a recession because that puts MORE people out of work. You get people back to work to bring more money in THEN you cut spending during the recovery when the economy is good.

When are you going to get it that people don't want to work when they don't have to?

There are pleanty of jobs in IT, healthcare, call centers that employers can't fill. We spend tons of money on education, there is no reason other than our fucked up education system that people can't get trained to do these jobs. The only reason they go unfilled is because people are whiners than know they can just collect from the government to get by. People whine so we don't make them get an education in something where they are not dependent on the government.

We still have to import illegal aliens for all the jobs people collecting welfare won't do.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK Beyond, I mostly agree with you but with some modifications.

 

The major thing being how much can we do by cutting the obvious big ticket items? Probably a fair bit but remember that any of us can probably help our own budget out by looking at the small things that are discretionary items.

 

One can look at the register tape form your last trip the the grocery store. Add up all the items that did not cost much but had little to do with going to the store in the first place. Not you personally, this is more of a general exercise. What effect on one's budget is that bag of chips, tub of ice cream and the buy five bottles of soda and save a buck?

 

That would be an analogy to the federal budget. How much could we cut at the bottom by insisting on a leaner budget in general? I honestly don't anticipate a need to ever use a court house in Nebraska but I pay for that stuff anyway.

 

As far as the defense budget goes, sure, we can make some good cuts there.

 

There was a reason why we went into Afghanistan in the first place. It took us years longer than we anticipated and thus a crap load of cash we were not planning on. However, we dumped his useless meat sack in the Indian ocean a couple of months ago. At this point, we are just setting ourselves up to learn what the British and Soviets learned in the past.

 

Iraq? OK that really did not work out the way that we expected. Still, what has been done cannot be undone. The sole remaining action there is to maintain bases in the region that we did not have before.

 

Libya? How much does it cost to fire a missile? Either get boots on the ground and do the job properly or stop intervening in a civil war we don't really have any part in.

 

Entitlements? A great deal can be done there. First off, we need to get back to regular public auditing. When Reagan came to power, didn't they find a crap load of checks being sent to Daffy Duck? We really should do that sweep yearly. We could also raise the retirement age. Really, today, you start collecting a check two years before you would have died in 1920. How about keeping people usefully employed for a couple more years?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'm just glad

robj101 wrote:

I'm just glad more people are realizing the whole thing is fucked up, both sides are packed with people who do not have anyone but their own best interests at heart.

And when have you ever done something that was not in your "own best interest"?

Have you ever considered that maybe it's impossible to not be self-serving all the time. Maybe a social and political system could work if we designed it will this in mind instead of living in the fantasy that people can be unselfish.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The credit

EXC wrote:

The credit downgrade is a good thing. Since the goverment can't stop borrowing or pass a balanced amendment, the lenders are the ones that are finally going to put a stop to the madness. We saw from the mortage crisis that easy credit is not such a good thing.

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about losing your credit rating. I don't give a shit what my credit score is, I don't plan on ever borowing money ever again. Credit scores are for people that are will to be slaves to banks and credit companies. People lend you money because they want to make a profit on you.

I don't understand why conservatives are upset about our credit being ruined, it's the equivent of a balanced budget amendment.

 

Because a lower credit rating means higher interest rates = billions more going to pay for interest in addition to our current obligations. While it isn't the end of the world, it is a waste of even more money that was predictable and preventable if our elected officials had more sense than a drunk college frat boy. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Because a lower credit rating means higher interest rates = billions more going to pay for interest in addition to our current obligations. While it isn't the end of the world, it is a waste of even more money that was predictable and preventable if our elected officials had more sense than a drunk college frat boy. 

 

Well, if Washington wasn't mad, they would take the higher interest rates as a sign to stop borrowing. Default in inevitable, the good thing is after this, reform might actually start to happen. This downgrade should speed up the process, they have to borrow even more now to pay the higher interest rates. I've already moved my money out of the USA, let the fun begin.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't want to hear shit

I don't want to hear shit about entitlement programs when the biggest welfare queens are corporate America.

You want the poor and the middle class to make cuts for things you claim could provide better and cheaper in the private sector, BUT DONT. Then you bitch about the poor and the middle class turning to government.

Yet Corporate America continues record profits and the lowest tax rate in history. For the past 30 years the mantra during good economies and bad economies from the right is "don;'t raise taxes" "Dont spend".

WHY, so they can "starve the beast" so they can continue their rape of the tax payers.

It's not fooling me. Blackmail doesn't work. Well, it does, and has, for far too long and I am fucking tired of it.

I'll tell you WHEN I'll start trusting Corporate America. I'll start trusting them when they start paying higher wages, pay for health care, bring jobs back here, and pay their share of taxes. Since that ain't going to happen any time soon, FUCK THEM!

Airlines in the 80s were dumped on us. Dot.coms in the 90s. Enron, Car companies and Banks in the past decade and every new NFL stadium PAID FOR, by the rest of us.

BULL SHIT, it aint working and wont work long term. Until the top starts giving a shit, they don't have anyone to blame but themselves if our economy collapses. The top can go fuck themselves if they think the bottom two classes shouldn't ask for help when they have constantly robbed us and dumped their losses on us.

The republicans started a class war due to their corporate overlords and they will get one. The problem is the middle and poor outnumber them and eventually if they don't wake up it will bite them in the ass as it should.

I am sick of giving one shit about people who think 7.25 is good enough and think that health care is a privilege that should only be provided to those who can pay. FUCK THEM.

I do not want us to look like China or India's slave labor which is what the economic right want in this country.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
You're getting what you

You're getting what you deserve. Less than 1/3 of your population voted in 2010. The Tea Party retards made sure to vote, level-headed people didn't. And as such, they ended up taking Congress AND holding it hostage. If you didn't vote, this is on you.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:You're

BenfromCanada wrote:

You're getting what you deserve. Less than 1/3 of your population voted in 2010. The Tea Party retards made sure to vote, level-headed people didn't. And as such, they ended up taking Congress AND holding it hostage. If you didn't vote, this is on you.

 

What planet are you living on to think that the tea party is in anyway responsible for the credit rating going down? They are the only ones saying we need to get debt under control and work on paying it off. This line being spouted by the dems that the tea party is responsible because they pointed out the real problems we have is amazingly ignorant. It is incredibly sad that anyone believes that line of bullshit. Go read the budget and educate yourself.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:You're

BenfromCanada wrote:

You're getting what you deserve. Less than 1/3 of your population voted in 2010. The Tea Party retards made sure to vote, level-headed people didn't. And as such, they ended up taking Congress AND holding it hostage. If you didn't vote, this is on you.

No, it isn't that we didn't vote. It is that the Republicans and Tea Party assholes thought since they got voted in we wanted them. NO, if you look at the voting public's recent cycle it is saying "GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR OR WE WILL DUMP YOU"

The Republican/Tea Party's mistake is that now that they have power they are like Jim Cary in "The Mask" "YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY LIKE ME"

But when you look at surveys outside "family values" even middle class and poor voting republicans and the majority of the public are against the cuts on social security medicade and medicare.

This was not a vote of confidence for republicans. It was a vote more like, "This driver sucks, lets see if the other driver is sober"

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'm just glad

robj101 wrote:

I'm just glad more people are realizing the whole thing is fucked up, both sides are packed with people who do not have anyone but their own best interests at heart.

The only difference in how each party is fucking up is by method and in some instances even that is the same.

Our government is fine it's the lifelong politicians in it we the people have elected who are screwing things up for the majority.

We are working for a new minority class, the politicians.

 

Wow rob, something rare we agree on.

But who do you think funds the politicians? I am certanly sure Exxon and GE make a hell of a lot more money than I do.

And this is where I get down on Beyond and Answers who falsely get a lip twitch when someone suggests a speed limit in a school zone. Somehow rules are always bad and ending up with money at the expense of others is always good.

What many fail to see is that a monopoly can exist in any system even a so called "open system". The most brilliant concept of written law to this date, as far as I have seen in human history is the first Amendment. It is an anti-trust law preventing monopolies on speech, press and assembly and on top of that gives a minority the right to attempt to make a case to the court to review a beef they may have with a private or public situation.

What we have now in America is a monopoly of one class. It is masterful in using marketing in social issues and selling the fear of "they want to rob me".

China despite what some may claim is a Capitalistic country. It was not always but is kicking our ass economically. It is as Bob Spence rightfully has called it "authoritarian capitalism".

We do have a lopsided economy and for anyone to claim that we dont has their heads up their asses. Food, fuel and housing costs are no longer about market demands but "whatever the market can get away with".

As long as we allow big money to control our congress we will continue down the road of being a third world country.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:We do have a

Brian37 wrote:

We do have a lopsided economy and for anyone to claim that we dont has their heads up their asses. Food, fuel and housing costs are no longer about market demands but "whatever the market can get away with".

As long as we allow big money to control our congress we will continue down the road of being a third world country.

 

I rather like this idea.  Some people have taken to writing this on their dollar bills.  You shouldn't deface government property or currency, but.....

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: What

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

What planet are you living on to think that the tea party is in anyway responsible for the credit rating going down? They are the only ones saying we need to get debt under control and work on paying it off. This line being spouted by the dems that the tea party is responsible because they pointed out the real problems we have is amazingly ignorant. It is incredibly sad that anyone believes that line of bullshit. Go read the budget and educate yourself.

Um, S&P specifically blames he Republicans for the down-rating, and they did refuse to budge on anything...no compromises came from them. I live on planet earth, have you been?


 

Brian37 wrote:

No, it isn't that we didn't vote. It is that the Republicans and Tea Party assholes thought since they got voted in we wanted them. NO, if you look at the voting public's recent cycle it is saying "GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR OR WE WILL DUMP YOU"

The Republican/Tea Party's mistake is that now that they have power they are like Jim Cary in "The Mask" "YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY LIKE ME"

But when you look at surveys outside "family values" even middle class and poor voting republicans and the majority of the public are against the cuts on social security medicade and medicare.

This was not a vote of confidence for republicans. It was a vote more like, "This driver sucks, lets see if the other driver is sober"

 

While that's true, if more people voted, they'd not have gotten that power.


 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote:Um, S&P

BenfromCanada wrote:

Um, S&P specifically blames he Republicans for the down-rating, and they did refuse to budge on anything...no compromises came from them. I live on planet earth, have you been?

Really? Perhaps you should read S&P's statement. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/05/national/main20088952.shtml 

 

S&P wrote:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

The only proposed plans that made a larger difference in the debt were the ones the Tea Party types were attempting to pass.

 

The quote that your lefty media has been using to blame the Tea Party is 

 

S&P wrote:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

But what difficulties are they talking about? The tea parties refusal to agree to smaller cuts and more spending? S&P clearly wants the deficit closed. They don't care if it is done by tax increases, spending cuts or a combination. So maybe you would have a point blaming the tea party types if there was another plan on the table that lowered the deficit more or even eliminated it. But there was not. No one proposed a plan that would do more. The tea party types never voted against a plan that would have aggressively raised revenues to lower the deficit because no such plan was ever proposed. 

 

It isn't that complicated. S&P's job is to warn investors about the stability of an investment. The only thing the tea party is guilty of is clearly demonstrating that 90% of Washington D.C. (republican leadership included) is not serious about solving the problem. They don't give a shit how the budget is balanced, all they care about is the likelihood that creditors will get their money. 

 

IF the tea party types had voted against a plan that balanced the budget, you would have a point. As it is, the only proposed plan that would have made a significant attempt was cut, cap and balance. The bottom line is S&P was looking for a plan that cut $4 trillion in projected debt, the resulting compromise did not have $4 trillion. So the lowered the rating.

 

S&P wrote:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policy making becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

Show me the plan proposed that tackles our structural issues, contains the costs of medicare and SS, and makes a larger comprehensive change than the plan the tea party types were pushing for..... you can't. The whole time, it was the tea partiers that pushed for more changes and seriously addressing our problem. Their only fault lay in their absolutism against taxes, but if you put up a comprehensive plan that balanced the budget, they would have had a really hard time voting against it. Alas, they never were put to the test on that, because they were the only serious ones in the debate about actually solving our fiscal problems. Yet, somehow it is their fault.... really.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:

You're getting what you deserve. Less than 1/3 of your population voted in 2010. The Tea Party retards made sure to vote, level-headed people didn't. And as such, they ended up taking Congress AND holding it hostage. If you didn't vote, this is on you.

 

What planet are you living on to think that the tea party is in anyway responsible for the credit rating going down? They are the only ones saying we need to get debt under control and work on paying it off. This line being spouted by the dems that the tea party is responsible because they pointed out the real problems we have is amazingly ignorant. It is incredibly sad that anyone believes that line of bullshit. Go read the budget and educate yourself.

Where was your precious tea party when Bush fucked up two wars? Where were was the tea party when the banks and car companies dumped their losses on the rest of us?

The tea party does not want dept reduction, they want power, they want corporate anarchy.

Go study your history, the last time Wal Street and big business enjoyed the wild west no rules attitude you and the tea party advocate, we ended up with the great depression.

Then you have the nerve to bitch that some of us would suggest that the people who caused the fucking mess might chip in more?

You want dept reduction, then go after the corporate goons who rapped the rest of us and stuck us with the bill.

You are so big on the free market but like most with your mindset don't give one ratts ass about who gets screwed over to make a buck.

I've seen too much of the old bullshit, "You want to rob me" from Corporate America when they are the ones robbing the rest of us.

I want a free market, I do not want a rigged "free for all market" where one class pass off our government to look the other way while they tank our economy.

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO NEED TO PAY FOR THE MESS THEY MADE, not the middle class and not the poor.

I'm tired of you lying about reality.

I've lived far too long too see wages stagnate, while corporate profits explode, cost of living explodes while jobs get crapper pay or get eliminated all together.

Bull shit. I've seen 30 years of Republican economic policies since Reagan. I was 14 then. I have seen nothing but money going out of the country, manufacturing disappear and Wal Street and Banks become casinos.

I am old enough to know bullshit when I see it. And I am pissed at the left for allowing the right to pull them to the right for this long.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Where was your

Brian37 wrote:

Where was your precious tea party when Bush fucked up two wars? Where were was the tea party when the banks and car companies dumped their losses on the rest of us?

The tea party does not want dept reduction, they want power, they want corporate anarchy.

The tea party didn't exist. It formed as a response to Bush turning out to be a big government spender, and was formed explicitly for the purposes of cutting government spending. Tea party stands for "taxed enough already" and consists of people with varied beliefs of what the role of government ought to be. The only thing we have in common is an agreement that government spending has to be brought under control. The tea party wasn't in control then, nor are they in control now. It really is a very small group of elected officials as demonstrated by their ultimate failure to get any decent cuts through in the recent spat. Hopefully, more will get in next year. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Go study your history, the last time Wal Street and big business enjoyed the wild west no rules attitude you and the tea party advocate, we ended up with the great depression.

I daresay that I know my late 1800's early 1900's economic history far better than you.  There is no basis that the economic policies of Hoover were at all similar to what I advocate. That period was rife with government subsidies, corruption, spending and the influence of the federal reserve. The government attempted to prop up the economy, much like they are now. I argue that it is governments attempts to prop up the economy that caused more damage and caused the depression to last significantly longer than depressions normally last. I would also argue that the responses of Bush and Obama to prop up the economy have cause more harm than good. I have gone through detailed explanations before on this site. Feel free to go back and contest anything I said. I can pull up plenty of evidence and logical explanations if I am convinced you will pay attention to them.

 

Brian37 wrote:

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO NEED TO PAY FOR THE MESS THEY MADE, not the middle class and not the poor.

I'm tired of you lying about reality.

Where have I lied about reality? Show me. If my facts are wrong, it ought to be easy to demonstrate. The bottom line is that whoever you want to blame, there simply is not enough money among the rich to pay for our current level of spending.

 

Even if you taxed at 100% for everyone who makes $380k+ you don't close the deficit. The top 1% made $1.68 trillion total last year, they payed $392 billion in taxes, that leaves $1.28 trillion that you could theoretically take (assuming that they continued to nicely make that money when you are confiscating 100%) The deficit is $1.65 trillion/year. 1.65-1.28 that leaves $370 billion per year that you have to make up. (also that doesn't account for whatever money is taken by state and local governments) You have to face reality, we can't maintain this level of spending without dramatically raising taxes and only "taking from the rich" isn't going to be anywhere close to enough. If everything the government spends on is sooooo important, then those costs are going to have to be born by a substantial portion of the middle class as well. Personally, I think there is plenty that can be cut and I really don't care what is cut. But your side has yet to make a serious proposal that balances the budget of any kind.

 

I might even be willing to support a serious proposal with tax increases if it works. Actually, I am growing more and more fond of taxing the poor. It is time they get to feel the pain of writing a check to Uncle Sam. Everyone should pay their fair share. I'm sick of people with little to no stake in government bellyaching about what the money ought to be spent on.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I might

Beyond Saving wrote:

I might even be willing to support a serious proposal with tax increases if it works. Actually, I am growing more and more fond of taxing the poor. It is time they get to feel the pain of writing a check to Uncle Sam. Everyone should pay their fair share. I'm sick of people with little to no stake in government bellyaching about what the money ought to be spent on.

 

I made less than $30,000 last year and paid over $1000 in federal taxes.  As my previous post stated, that is $1,000+ MORE than Exxon and Bank of America paid combined. 

Get. a. clue.  If you don't have the money, you don't have the tax shelters.  And the poor pay their taxes.  We don't have a choice.  I am only asking for the corporations and wealthy who can afford to pay to do so.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Beyond Saving

cj wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I might even be willing to support a serious proposal with tax increases if it works. Actually, I am growing more and more fond of taxing the poor. It is time they get to feel the pain of writing a check to Uncle Sam. Everyone should pay their fair share. I'm sick of people with little to no stake in government bellyaching about what the money ought to be spent on.

 

I made less than $30,000 last year and paid over $1000 in federal taxes.  As my previous post stated, that is $1,000+ MORE than Exxon and Bank of America paid combined. 

Get. a. clue.  If you don't have the money, you don't have the tax shelters.  And the poor pay their taxes.  We don't have a choice.  I am only asking for the corporations and wealthy who can afford to pay to do so.

 

Even in cases where corporations are able to significantly "dodge" taxes (they generally pay a whole bunch of taxes other than income taxes, Exxon for example paid $7.7 billion in taxes in the US), that money is taxed again when it is distributed to individuals either through capital gains or income. That money gets taxed far more than your money before it is used to purchase a yacht.

 

And no, the poor do not pay their fair share by any measure. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

The top 1% earn 20% of the money in our country but pay 38% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 35% of the money but pay 59% of the total tax burden. The bottom 50% earn 13% of the money but only pay 2.7% of the tax burden. By average tax rate it, top 1% pays 23%, top 5% pay 21% the bottom 50% pay 3%.

 

Take your 30k and write a check for $9900 and your tax rate will approach what mine was. What? That is too much? You can't afford it? You want to keep your $8900? How greedy of you not to pay your fair share. By the way, you need to cut another check of around $1500 to the state and maybe $800 to your city. Imagine if those were your taxes, and someone came up to you and said "your not paying your fair share". If you can imagine that, you can see why it sets people like me off. Especially when you turn around and talk about your 3% tax rate. 

 

We really do need to simplify the tax code, because right now it is abused. It is possible to make a bunch of money and pay little to no taxes (that is the exception, not the rule), it is possible to get a tax refund larger than the amount you paid in. But don't go blindly supporting "raising taxes on the rich" because you can point to a few examples where taxes are legally dodged. We ought to have a tax code where everyone pays pretty much the same percentage, no deductions, no fancy accountants, no special exceptions. Until we have that, discussing the tax rates is a waste of time. The result is that saps like me pay everything, the poor and the politically connected pay far less. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The top

Beyond Saving wrote:

The top 1% earn 20% of the money in our country but pay 38% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 35% of the money but pay 59% of the total tax burden. The bottom 50% earn 13% of the money but only pay 2.7% of the tax burden. By average tax rate it, top 1% pays 23%, top 5% pay 21% the bottom 50% pay 3%.

 

Take your 30k and write a check for $9900 and your tax rate will approach what mine was. What? That is too much? You can't afford it? You want to keep your $8900? How greedy of you not to pay your fair share. By the way, you need to cut another check of around $1500 to the state and maybe $800 to your city. Imagine if those were your taxes, and someone came up to you and said "your not paying your fair share". If you can imagine that, you can see why it sets people like me off. Especially when you turn around and talk about your 3% tax rate. 

 

We really do need to simplify the tax code, because right now it is abused. It is possible to make a bunch of money and pay little to no taxes (that is the exception, not the rule), it is possible to get a tax refund larger than the amount you paid in. But don't go blindly supporting "raising taxes on the rich" because you can point to a few examples where taxes are legally dodged. We ought to have a tax code where everyone pays pretty much the same percentage, no deductions, no fancy accountants, no special exceptions. Until we have that, discussing the tax rates is a waste of time. The result is that saps like me pay everything, the poor and the politically connected pay far less. 

 

The poor do not get out of paying other taxes, either.  In states with sales tax, they pay the exact same percentage as the richest.  The wealthy may pay more in sales tax, but that is their choice to spend the money.  If you are so fortunate as to have a job, you get to pay social security, medicare, unemployment and any the other local taxes required.  No one gets a free ride - except those who can afford the full time accountants and tax lawyers.  I'm not impressed with how abused you are because I'll bet you had way more than $27,000 after taxes to live on last year.

If I had a fricking job, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes - because it meant I had more to live on, I could pay all my bills, I wouldn't need food stamps and I would have health insurance.  I'd be paying out a lot more than I am now and I would be tickled to death to be in a higher tax bracket.

Sheeze...

 

Edit: Three years ago, my tax bill was over $12,000.  I really would like to be back in that tax bracket.  My heart pumps purple piss for you, bud.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The poor do not get

cj wrote:

The poor do not get out of paying other taxes, either.  In states with sales tax, they pay the exact same percentage as the richest.  The wealthy may pay more in sales tax, but that is their choice to spend the money.  If you are so fortunate as to have a job, you get to pay social security, medicare, unemployment and any the other local taxes required.  No one gets a free ride - except those who can afford the full time accountants and tax lawyers.  I'm not impressed with how abused you are because I'll bet you had way more than $27,000 after taxes to live on last year.

If I had a fricking job, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes - because it meant I had more to live on, I could pay all my bills, I wouldn't need food stamps and I would have health insurance.  I'd be paying out a lot more than I am now and I would be tickled to death to be in a higher tax bracket.

Sheeze...

 

Edit: Three years ago, my tax bill was over $12,000.  I really would like to be back in that tax bracket.  My heart pumps purple piss for you, bud.

 

So you want a job, but you want to tax the people who might give you a job more? Take a person who operates a successful company and is considering expanding. Let say this person takes a draw of $250k AGI because that is the number Bama likes to pick on as "rich" and someone bringing home $250k is likely to be in a position to consider expanding his/her business. That puts this person in the 33% bracket so their federal income tax is $82500 plus $16,953 for the self employment tax. So you are paying $99,453 in federal taxes. That is significant money. Add in another $20000 for state and local taxes (varies widely but 20k is probably a good ballpark estimate for most rural localities). I can do a lot with $120k. Hell, I can do a lot with $50k. But when that money is going to uncle sam, expansion becomes far more difficult.

 

Increasing taxes on the evil "rich" is only going to cut back the number of new jobs being created even further. It is short sighted and based far more on envy than any rational view of how to improve the economy. If you want jobs you have to let people who are likely to invest in new companies and hire new employees have control of their money. I think the government has more than illustrated their incompetence at hiring new people with the trillion dollar stimulus that spent a ton of money but hired very few people. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BS, That would fine if we

BS,

That would fine if we could come up with some sort of correlation between lower taxes and jobs.  I have no idea what the political leaning of this paper is, but you are free to claim it is obviously progressive and therefore, you don't agree with a thing he says.  Fine.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-27/bostonglobe/29821500_1_higher-taxes-tax-increases-spending-cuts

Quote:

The lesson, then, is that long-term efforts to reduce the deficit are a good idea, large cuts in the deficit at a time of high unemployment are a bad idea, and that taxes can be raised as part of a deficit-reduction effort without impeding growth. Unfortunately, Washington doesn’t seem to have the patience for this kind of nuanced approach.

Ed Moscovitch is president of Cape Ann Economics and chairman of the Bay State Reading Institute.

 

Search on correlation jobs taxes. 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-difficult-recover-185409638.html

The Motley Fool wrote:

Neither is entirely fair. Public policies often have lower impacts than some think. The correlation between tax rates and jobs growth, for example, might seem straightforward at first thought -- higher taxes equal lower job growth -- but such a relationship is elusive when looking at the data. "Government gets blamed too much." said Warren Buffett last week, "and it may get too much credit when things do improve."

 

This doesn't sound positive, either: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jul/17/smart-bombs-budgets-need-static-cling/

Quote:

In 2007, before the economy collapsed, the buzzkill crew at CBO reviewed the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and concluded:

CBO’s latest analysis of how tax cuts affect economic behavior adds to the growing literature showing that tax cuts can have a modest positive impact on economic performance if they are paid for. But, it also adds to the growing literature showing that even under the best of circumstances, the additional revenue generated by economic activity stimulated by tax cuts offsets only a small percentage of the revenue loss that the tax cuts cause.  If tax cuts are deficit financed, the net long-term economic effect could actually be negative, and the revenue losses could be larger, rather than smaller, than the static revenue estimates indicate.

 

You can keep hunting if you wish and find all the quotes that support your point of view.  I can find some more that support my pov.  We can argue all day.  

What I don't see is Exxon or BofA paying any income taxes.  And they aren't hiring.  They have billions - billions - in profit even after paying payroll and sales tax and any operating taxes (depending on where a particular office is located) and yet they don't pay income taxes.  I'm not talking raising income taxes, I'm talking paying income taxes.  Any.  Some.  A little.  Shit, $2 would be more than either of them paid last year.  And that is going to prevent them from hiring?  Get your head out.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:What I don't see is

cj wrote:

 

What I don't see is Exxon or BofA paying any income taxes.  And they aren't hiring.  They have billions - billions - in profit even after paying payroll and sales tax and any operating taxes (depending on where a particular office is located) and yet they don't pay income taxes.  I'm not talking raising income taxes, I'm talking paying income taxes.  Any.  Some.  A little.  Shit, $2 would be more than either of them paid last year.  And that is going to prevent them from hiring?  Get your head out.

 

 

 http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

 

Quote:

U.S. federal: -$156 millionU.S. state and local: $110 millionInternational: $15.2 billion
  
Quote:
Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.
  

 So you pay 47% of your income to taxes, or else it's not your fair share.

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:cj

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

cj wrote:

What I don't see is Exxon or BofA paying any income taxes.  And they aren't hiring.  They have billions - billions - in profit even after paying payroll and sales tax and any operating taxes (depending on where a particular office is located) and yet they don't pay income taxes.  I'm not talking raising income taxes, I'm talking paying income taxes.  Any.  Some.  A little.  Shit, $2 would be more than either of them paid last year.  And that is going to prevent them from hiring?  Get your head out.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

Quote:

U.S. federal: -$156 millionU.S. state and local: $110 millionInternational: $15.2 billion
  
Quote:
Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.
  So you pay 47% of your income to taxes, or else it's not your fair share.

 

From the same article -

Quote:

Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes.

 

Which was my point.  It is their choice what countries they do business in.  They knew what those countries charge for income taxes, the tax laws in those countries, and how it will affect their bottom line before they go in.  If they didn't know, then what the hell are they doing there in the first place?  What I would want to see are the actual checks before I started to believe all that money actually did get paid out. 

I'm sure you are shocked I would have the gall to say that - but I have worked with corporate accountants for many years.  One of their jobs is to ensure that the company pays out as little as possible in taxes.  And I would not be surprised to learn that the actual checks written to all those governmental entities was actually less than reported.  All very legitimately and legally, of course.

Poor Exxon - only 2 cents profit per gallon of gas sold.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news/companies/Exxon/index.htm wrote:

The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009.

 

Net profit- which means after taxes.  ALL taxes.

That's a hell of a lot of gallons of gasoline.  And their poor CEO had a cut in compensation last year as well.  Poor guy.  He works so hard.  I don't know how he can make ends meet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13366958 wrote:

Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson received compensation worth $21.5 million, about 1 percent lower than the previous year, according to a company filing with the SEC.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Cpt_pineapple

cj wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

cj wrote:

What I don't see is Exxon or BofA paying any income taxes.  And they aren't hiring.  They have billions - billions - in profit even after paying payroll and sales tax and any operating taxes (depending on where a particular office is located) and yet they don't pay income taxes.  I'm not talking raising income taxes, I'm talking paying income taxes.  Any.  Some.  A little.  Shit, $2 would be more than either of them paid last year.  And that is going to prevent them from hiring?  Get your head out.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

Quote:

U.S. federal: -$156 millionU.S. state and local: $110 millionInternational: $15.2 billion
  
Quote:
Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.
  So you pay 47% of your income to taxes, or else it's not your fair share.

 

From the same article -

Quote:

Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes.

 

Which was my point.  It is their choice what countries they do business in.  They knew what those countries charge for income taxes, the tax laws in those countries, and how it will affect their bottom line before they go in.  If they didn't know, then what the hell are they doing there in the first place?  What I would want to see are the actual checks before I started to believe all that money actually did get paid out. 

I'm sure you are shocked I would have the gall to say that - but I have worked with corporate accountants for many years.  One of their jobs is to ensure that the company pays out as little as possible in taxes.  And I would not be surprised to learn that the actual checks written to all those governmental entities was actually less than reported.  All very legitimately and legally, of course.

Poor Exxon - only 2 cents profit per gallon of gas sold.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news/companies/Exxon/index.htm wrote:

The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009.

 

Net profit- which means after taxes.  ALL taxes.

That's a hell of a lot of gallons of gasoline.  And their poor CEO had a cut in compensation last year as well.  Poor guy.  He works so hard.  I don't know how he can make ends meet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=13366958 wrote:

Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson received compensation worth $21.5 million, about 1 percent lower than the previous year, according to a company filing with the SEC.

 

 

 

So they make $7.56 billion net, and pay 10 times that in taxes?  And that isn't enough?

 

Even if that isn't in income taxes, doesn't that mean you aren't paying YOUR fair share in OTHER taxes? You're not paying your fair share of sales tax. Exxon is paying more in other taxes, than all your taxes [including income taxes]COMBINED! You paid 3% of your income, Exxon paid 47%.

 

As for Exxon making record profits. Sure, oil is a valuable resource. What's wrong with making a profit? Almost half of the money they made went to taxes. Worldwide companies aren't allowed to make a dime! They're worldwide, so not only do they pay taxes in America but in other countries.

 

Portugal, Egypt, Iraq, Norway and many others

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_where_countries.aspx

 

Let's compare

 

Your percentage of tax- 3%

 

Exxon's percentage- 47%

 

What's it with Liberals hating people who make money?

 

Answer me this:

 

How much IS a fair share? How much money are they allowed to make? 47% in taxes not high enough? Is 87%? 97%? 100%?

 

What percentage of their income should be taxed? Right now it's 47% and apparently it's not high enough.

 

How much profit can they make? $7.56 billion, $9.76 Million? $1000? $0.12?

 

How much profit can they make?

 

They made $7.56 billion, apparently that's too much.

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I would also like to point

I would also like to point out to cj, that not all of Exxon's profits were from the U.S

 

Like I said they have sites in Poland, Portugal, Iraq, Egypt etc... and if the profits are made at those sites, they are not subject to U.S tax, they are subject to the Polish, Iraqi, Portuguese...etc taxes.

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So they

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So they make $7.56 billion net, and pay 10 times that in taxes?  And that isn't enough?

 

Apparently, their business model works just fine and they can afford the taxes they pay - whatever that amount may be.

From your own website, $266 million - federal and state taxes - was paid in the US.  The rest went to foreign countries.  They must not care about paying taxes, or they would do all of their business in the US where taxes are obviously much lower.  So why don't they?  Because they are extracting and refining oil in those countries and so must pay the taxes there.  As I said, it must work for their business model or they would quit.  Your 47% includes that $15+ billion they paid overseas. 

And just how did they come up with that number for total taxes?

156 million + 110 million + 15.2 billion foreign income taxes /=/ 78.6 billion

Add in the 7.7 billion recorded tax costs in the US and it still doesn't add up to 78.6 billion.  It isn't even 1/2 of the total amount, more like 1/10 is paid in the US.  It is not the fault of the US tax code that they are shelling out 78.6 billion dollars a year.  I don't care how you add it up.

So, take the 156 million +110 million in federal and state taxes and you get about 3% of net profit paid in the US.  Roughly, since net is after taxes.  Not so egregious after all.

The other business costs in fees and duties and sales taxes are what any business would have to pay anywhere in the world.  If you can't make your tax bill, perhaps you should rework your business model.  Taxes - any where in the world except North Korea and Kuwait - are a cost of doing business.

And think of this - despite their 2 cents per gallon profit claims - those taxes are passed on to the consumer.  Every last cent.

As for nasty liberal me griping about profits - businesses should make a profit.  That is why they are in business.  My point was that despite taxes, and regulations, and the high cost of hiring CEO's, Exxon manages to stay in business.  So their tax burden is well within their business model.  And looking at the numbers, it ain't the US tax code that would put them out of business - it would be other countries.

PS - I don't pay sales tax - Oregon doesn't have any.  You can slice it however you want to count it.  Oregon has one of the highest state income taxes.  Oregon has one of the lowest total tax burdens.  I live here for the scenery, not for the taxes.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well sure, it really is not surprising that Exxon does business in the countries where the oil is. Duh!

 

If you want to see them paying U.S. Taxes, then there are a few ways to do that.

 

You can petition your congress critters to change the law. After all, they were the ones who wrote it in the first place. Remember though that the cost will ultimately be shouldered by everyone who buys gas. Their name will be on the check but the cash that supports such will come out of your wallet every time you gas up.

 

You could let them drill here. We know that there are untapped reserves in the U.S. But various special interest groups don't want drilling in “very special” places. Green Peace think that caribou are more important than Exxon paying taxes. Coastal resort owners think that tourism dollars are more important. Great that and when gas eventually becomes so expensive that people stop traveling so much will they still feel the same way?

 

Another law that could be changed would be on who actually owns the product at each step along the line.

 

Right now, you see the Exxon truck pulling up to the Exxon station. But the truck filled up at a head end for a distribution system which is a common carrier network. What happens is that Exxon brings tankers into some of the largest ports and then sells the crude to refineries who are owned by different people (at least on paper that is true but I would bet that the same people are pulling the strings at both levels). Next week, Texaco will sell a ship full of crude to the same refinery.

 

When the various products are made, they are then put into a nation wide network of pipes that send stuff to the thousands of distribution points where Exxon, Texaco and so on fill their trucks from. Along the way, title to the product rests in the hands of the refinery itself.

 

If you change the law so that instead of the refineries owning the product, they must become contractors for the company at both ends, then it will be easier to track who owes what in taxes. The problem with that being that it will still reflect back to the price at the pump. But you will still be able to pay $5 a gallon to make sure that Exxon pays the government.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea but since

Brian37 wrote:
Yea but since the 60s we had at least one president who balanced the budget and gave us a surplus.

Correction: We had one fool of a Arkansas rockabilly generate a HUGE surpluss via dumb luck, followed by another incompetent imbecile from the south spend (at the time) record amounts on a war that achieved *NOTHING* positive, and both that and another armed conflict in central Asia bungled to gross inefficiency, followed by yet another incompetent, inexperienced, amateurish dolt  with lots of feelgood speeches and little to offer the public except making bumblefuck attempts at giving free (metaphorical) blowjobs to every shady leftist agenda imaginable, save for radical feminism, and he did so often with disappointing results by nearly every standard. He also raised the debt to new, stratospheric levels.

To be sure, I'm almost positive most of the frustration expressed towards the GOP right now was at their inability and/or unwillingness to hammer out a new debt quickly enough, coming dangerously close to a financial implosion and still achieved a credit downgrade. Also GOP voters are frustrated because the budget cuts were so marginal. Let me also address that

Quote:
But you DONT cut spending during a recession because that puts MORE people out of work.

 

had a certain individual in office not wasted so much taxpayer's and Chinese money on useless shit nobody cares for, none of these cuts would be necessary as they are at this present moment in time. He's apparently learned much from the past 2 years in office, moving more towards political centrism, and obviously has realized that Big Budget social democratism isn't to win him many friends in the states.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What's it with Liberals hating people who make money?

Haven't you heard? Stereotypes don't apply to Cj because she doesn't like them, or in her words "[Pigeon holes] don't fit [me]".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you want to see

Quote:

If you want to see them paying U.S. Taxes, then there are a few ways to do that.

 

That was not my point.  My point was that 90% of Exxon's tax burden is due to their own business model and having facilities in foreign countries.  Not the US Congress.  They are already allowed to write off the entire tax burden from all sources - 100% - from their revenues before their income tax is computed.  I don't have a clue as to what else could be done - by the US Congress - to reduce their tax burden.

This does not mean I think they should not operate in foreign countries.  It is just the consequence that an international corporation has to deal with.  And comparing their tax burden with my tax burden is a major case of apples and oranges.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Haven't you

Kapkao wrote:

Haven't you heard? Stereotypes don't apply to Cj because she doesn't like them, or in her words "[Pigeon holes] don't fit [me]".

 

Thank you, Kap. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I made less than

cj wrote:

I made less than $30,000 last year and paid over $1000 in federal taxes.  As my previous post stated, that is $1,000+ MORE than Exxon and Bank of America paid combined. 

Get. a. clue.  If you don't have the money, you don't have the tax shelters.  And the poor pay their taxes.  We don't have a choice.  I am only asking for the corporations and wealthy who can afford to pay to do so.

Maybe you should become a corporation.

As Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people". The people that make a salary or profits off Exxon pay a lot in personal income tax. I'm not sure how the mere act of beign a corporation is a rational reason to tax this group of people. You want to double tax these people so they keep very little profit.

Instead of taxes why not charge people for the government services and resourses they use, just as any business does with it's customers. This way, we won't go bankrupt.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Haven't you heard? Stereotypes don't apply to Cj because she doesn't like them, or in her words "[Pigeon holes] don't fit [me]".

 

Thank you, Kap. 

 

I hope to hell you're being sarcastic, because I was. Hard to tell over the net.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The tea

Beyond Saving wrote:
The tea party wasn't in control then, nor are they in control now. It really is a very small group of elected officials as demonstrated by their ultimate failure to get any decent cuts through in the recent spat. Hopefully, more will get in next year. 

Hopefully, though if history is to judge, we as a nation will likely have learned nothing from the past 2 +1/2 years.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: cj wrote: I made

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

I made less than $30,000 last year and paid over $1000 in federal taxes.  As my previous post stated, that is $1,000+ MORE than Exxon and Bank of America paid combined. 

Get. a. clue.  If you don't have the money, you don't have the tax shelters.  And the poor pay their taxes.  We don't have a choice.  I am only asking for the corporations and wealthy who can afford to pay to do so.

Maybe you should become a corporation.

As Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people". The people that make a salary or profits off Exxon pay a lot in personal income tax. I'm not sure how the mere act of beign a corporation is a rational reason to tax this group of people. You want to double tax these people so they keep very little profit.

Instead of taxes why not charge people for the government services and resourses they use, just as any business does with it's customers. This way, we won't go bankrupt.

 

Problem: federal government is not permitted to be run like a business in the constitution. Maybe an amendment to make it legal would help, though I doubt it would pass. Also; because I haven't actually addressed this in a previous discussion; you wanting to believe that government institutions (aside from egregious free handouts like medicare) are failing and no long financially sustainable does not automatically make this the case. Only recently has such a dramatic stress test been applied to the fiscal stability of our nation, and before that Law Enforcement, Fire services, interstate highways, and numerous other (ostensibly) essential services were sustainable.

Tell me, how do you plan for the government to collect fees for such "services" as military and foreign intelligence/espionage? Is the case, as I suspect it is, that you think we should abolish these "services" or that they should be made as exceptions to your idea about service fees? Otherwise, how exactly would one estimate an individual's use of something like the military or intelligence gathering?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:  Problem:

Kapkao wrote:

 

Problem: federal government is not permitted to be run like a business in the constitution.

 

What provision prevents them from switching from taxes to user fees? The constitutionality of a lot of things congress does is quite questionalble.

Kapkao wrote:

Maybe an amendment to make it legal would help, though I doubt it would pass. Also; because I haven't actually addressed this in a previous discussion; you wanting to believe that government institutions (aside from egregious free handouts like medicare) are failing and no long financially sustainable does not automatically make this the case. Only recently has such a dramatic stress test been applied to the fiscal stability of our nation, and before that Law Enforcement, Fire services, interstate highways, and numerous other (ostensibly) essential services were sustainable.

I contend that an economic system that is not 'pay as you go' or 'pay for what you use' is irrational and unsustainable. The way the currenct system works is you don't pay if you can't or won't or if you can conceal your wealth. This means others must pay for the services others recieve, people can cheat the system easily as well. So you if you live in a fire trap and I don't I end up paying for the services you need.

Kapkao wrote:

Tell me, how do you plan for the government to collect fees for such "services" as military and foreign intelligence/espionage? Is the case, as I suspect it is, that you think we should abolish these "services" or that they should be made as exceptions to your idea about service fees? Otherwise, how exactly would one estimate an individual's use of something like the military or intelligence gathering?

Same as any business. If you go to a hotel, part of the charge is for security. Why can't the whole country work this way?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:BS, That would fine

cj wrote:

BS,

That would fine if we could come up with some sort of correlation between lower taxes and jobs.  I have no idea what the political leaning of this paper is, but you are free to claim it is obviously progressive and therefore, you don't agree with a thing he says.  Fine.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-27/bostonglobe/29821500_1_higher-taxes-tax-increases-spending-cuts

Quote:

The lesson, then, is that long-term efforts to reduce the deficit are a good idea, large cuts in the deficit at a time of high unemployment are a bad idea, and that taxes can be raised as part of a deficit-reduction effort without impeding growth. Unfortunately, Washington doesn’t seem to have the patience for this kind of nuanced approach.

Ed Moscovitch is president of Cape Ann Economics and chairman of the Bay State Reading Institute.

 

Search on correlation jobs taxes. 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-difficult-recover-185409638.html

The Motley Fool wrote:

Neither is entirely fair. Public policies often have lower impacts than some think. The correlation between tax rates and jobs growth, for example, might seem straightforward at first thought -- higher taxes equal lower job growth -- but such a relationship is elusive when looking at the data. "Government gets blamed too much." said Warren Buffett last week, "and it may get too much credit when things do improve."

 

This doesn't sound positive, either: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jul/17/smart-bombs-budgets-need-static-cling/

Quote:

In 2007, before the economy collapsed, the buzzkill crew at CBO reviewed the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and concluded:

CBO’s latest analysis of how tax cuts affect economic behavior adds to the growing literature showing that tax cuts can have a modest positive impact on economic performance if they are paid for. But, it also adds to the growing literature showing that even under the best of circumstances, the additional revenue generated by economic activity stimulated by tax cuts offsets only a small percentage of the revenue loss that the tax cuts cause.  If tax cuts are deficit financed, the net long-term economic effect could actually be negative, and the revenue losses could be larger, rather than smaller, than the static revenue estimates indicate.

 

You can keep hunting if you wish and find all the quotes that support your point of view.  I can find some more that support my pov.  We can argue all day.  

What I don't see is Exxon or BofA paying any income taxes.  And they aren't hiring.  They have billions - billions - in profit even after paying payroll and sales tax and any operating taxes (depending on where a particular office is located) and yet they don't pay income taxes.  I'm not talking raising income taxes, I'm talking paying income taxes.  Any.  Some.  A little.  Shit, $2 would be more than either of them paid last year.  And that is going to prevent them from hiring?  Get your head out.

 

 

Hence the problem with relying on statistics alone to determine the effect of economic policies. The economy is far more complicated than any one variable and attempts to isolate one variable and say "Aha! Here is the solution" simply doesn't work. There are a million other variables that also can have substantial effect on an economy. Regulation, natural disasters, wars, interest rate, natural ebb and flow, popular perception etc. can all have positive or negative effects on the economy. In an increasingly global economy, what other countries are doing can have an effect as well. But just because you can't isolate a given variable doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. Add to that the fact that hiring takes time. You don't get a tax cut and hire the very next day. It can often take well over a year to put plans in place for expansion and actually start hiring.

 

Now as far as taxes are concerned- hiring people takes money. Any corporation or investor has X number of dollars that it has to decide how to spend. If you make X smaller it means that the corporation or investor has less to spend. The smaller X is, the less likely a company is to hire and the more likely it is to lay people off. I can assure you that if I had the extra money, I would love to expand and hire more people. My personal income is closely related to how many people work for me. 

 

If your goal is to create more employment you ought to pursue policies that make it easier and more likely for employers to hire. Reducing the amount of money available to potential employers makes it more difficult to hire. Letting them keep their money makes it easier and therefore more likely they will hire. 

 

BofA had a net loss of $2.2 billion. So exactly what income do you want taxed?

 http://investor.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1376998&highlight

They should have lost more but we bailed them out with TARP. Which I will agree is bullshit. 

 

 

Alright, just did a little research on Exxon's taxes. Straight from their official SEC filings 

http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2lyLmludC53ZXN0bGF3YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2RvY3VtZW50L3YxLzAwMDExOTMxMjUtMTEtMDQ3Mzk0L3htbC9zdWJkb2N1bWVudC8xL3BhZ2UvMTAx

 

Exxon didn't pay income taxes in 2009 because they overpaid in 2008. In 2008 they paid $3.4 billion on around $10 billion in US income. In 2009, they only recorded $2.5 billion in US income. Having overpaid the previous year, they had no tax obligation. Although according to their later reports they did end up paying $500 million in income taxes for 2009 after an amendment, I couldn't find any official documents. Only quotes from their press office. So not only did they pay their owed taxes, they paid early- those greedy SOBS.

 

In fact, if you want to look at the last 5 years of 10-k's Exxon has paid a total of $59 billion in US taxes (federal and state) on only $40.5 billion in US earnings because they have been investing heavily in the US (around $26 billion in the US). So how much is a "fair share"? 

 

Edit: BTW Exxon is hiring. A quick google search reveals http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/fortune/1105/gallery.fortune500_most_hiring.fortune/14.html

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What provision

EXC wrote:

What provision prevents them from switching from taxes to user fees? The constitutionality of a lot of things congress does is quite questionalble.

Your exact words was "Instead of taxes why not charge people for the government services and resourses they use, just as any business does with it's customers."

I responded that running a business or being run as a business is not allowed by the constitution. That a lot of shit being done by federal government is not constitutional does not make fee-based budgets acceptable. Two wrongs does not equal a right. So on, and so forth.

 

Quote:
I contend that an economic system that is not 'pay as you go' or 'pay for what you use' is irrational and unsustainable. The way the currenct system works is you don't pay if you can't or won't or if you can conceal your wealth. This means others must pay for the services others recieve, people can cheat the system easily as well. So you if you live in a fire trap and I don't I end up paying for the services you need.

You can make bullshit contentions all you like, but they don't automatically become true without evidence. At least, not from my POV.

 

Quote:
Same as any business. If you go to a hotel, part of the charge is for security. Why can't the whole country work this way?

A weak attempt at a rhetorical dodge. Maybe you would like to answer the question directly and comprehensively now. We'll see.

edit; Part of your income tax already goes to military and intelligence expense. "Same as any business", but that is not fee-based nor pay-as-you-go.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Your exact

Kapkao wrote:

Your exact words was "Instead of taxes why not charge people for the government services and resourses they use, just as any business does with it's customers."

I responded that running a business or being run as a business is not allowed by the constitution. That a lot of shit being done by federal government is not constitutional does not make fee-based budgets acceptable. Two wrongs does not equal a right. So on, and so forth.

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about fees. We already have several areas of our government that collect fees to pay for part of their operations. For example, the US Postal Service has actually had years it brought revenue into the government (although recently has ran at huge losses). I am not aware of anyone credible challenging their constitutionality. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X