Trickle down economics again.
The rich have not produced more jobs. They put their money in off shore tax havens to accumulate more wealth.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mitt Romney to Announce Vice Presidential Pick via iPhone App; Obama Campaign Releases New App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The rich have not produced more jobs. They put their money in off shore tax havens to accumulate more wealth.
There you go again with your FOX News talking points. It's all you do here. FWIW, as one of the more moderate members here, you make this place way less enjoyable than it has been in the past.
Maybe I should get a job with fox.
Funny I think exactly the same yet I see maybe 30 minutes total a year.
Yet, people who don't watch seem to know the talking points. Is there a website that list all the talking points? Maybe daily kos?
----------
You're right it's the government that creates jobs.
The rich democrats who plant these seeds if evil greedy corporations also hide their money I'm off shore tax havens.
That's what leftist tax policies do, they encourage the rich to move their money. Liberals and conservatives both protect their wealth, because the earned it or inherited (still earned by someone). Bottom line you're not entitled to someone else's hard earned income.
Funny I think exactly the same yet I see maybe 30 minutes total a year.
Yet, people who don't watch seem to know the talking points. Is there a website that list all the talking points? Maybe daily kos?
----------
You're right it's the government that creates jobs.
The rich democrats who plant these seeds if evil greedy corporations also hide their money I'm off shore tax havens.
That's what leftist tax policies do, they encourage the rich to move their money. Liberals and conservatives both protect their wealth, because the earned it or inherited (still earned by someone). Bottom line you're not entitled to someone else's hard earned income.
Trickle down economics again.
Let's assume you had a contractor that you hired to build your house. Let's assume you had an account that had a large sum in it, and received regular deposits. What do you think would happen if you decided to not pay your contractor anymore?
We have a massive debt, so when someone says:
they are just patently wrong. Until the debt is zero and the deficit is zero, you cannot claim that the government has no claim to your income. If you are a US citizen, you will owe for ongoing government and past debts. That's just how it works.
Yes, both sides have had their moments where they have refused to budge, but you have to admit things have been historically bad predominantly by one party since Obama was elected. When GWB was in office, the GOP didn't budge on anything because they didn't have to. When Clinton was in office, the neo-cons shut down the government and wasted massive amounts of money on witch hunts. The Democrats play the same games, but they play pee-wee football and the GOP are the NFL.
You have a point, but I think you fail to understand the why. Money will always flow to the people who have resources, who own businesses, and who have skills. If we emptied every bank account tomorrow and reset everything to zero, the people who are rich today will be rich again in due course. People will still buy goods and services from those who provide them. The Walmart family would go from zero to billionaires again in very little time. So, when the economy is stalled or sluggish, what invariably works to get it moving? The answer is money. I don't care if that money is being spent by the wealthy or the poor; the problem is that the wealthy already have the money and aren't spending it. Monetary circulation is critical for a vibrant economy. It's really that simple. So, while we can debate whether the money should be spent on food stamps, medicare, the military, or whatever, the money needs to be spent. It needs to be circulated. Taxes are the pump that siphons some of the most stagnant money and re-injects it back into the economy in places that otherwise wouldn't get anything.
You can call that whatever you want, but in reality it is nothing more than the US economic system, and it incorporates the best of free market capitilism, socialism, marxism, oligarchys, etc... We are a melting pot, and it's folly to remove from our system parts that actually do work.
BUT. I highlighted the single word I was waiting for. It's always there (not just from you).
Yup, to avoid opposing views and not to be swayed by a reasonable alternative point of view.
----------
No matter how much you "give" the federal government, they have no intention of paying it down. You "give" them more money and all they are going to do is say "we have all this money, we should give it to people in need". What they'd do is probably increase the poverty line and just add more people to their voting roles.
I don't know about that. We had a period of time in our very recent past where we had surplusses and one party wanted to keep things the way they were so they could lower the debt, while the other party wanted to give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest of the wealthy. We all know how that's worked out.
No-one of importance to you, unless Parliament and the PM of Canada extended them to you.
BL.
I've never believed in using it as I like to hear all opinions. It appears my beliefs may be changing.
I can. The GOP refused to let them expire. Obama tried to end them for the top earners. GOP would not go for it and help the middle class cuts hostage. Not much of a choice for Obama.
Oh, we can remember.
So, you are blaming Obama for the Bush tax cuts... that the GOP wants to make permanent? Do you not see how ludicrous your position is?
I applaud him for it, even though he may have resisted some. (It's not often I agree with something Obama does)
Yet, when a liberal points to the Bush tax cuts as being the evil economy killing *****torm that they are, you point to Obama extending them under what amounts to extortionist threats as your defense?
Again, do you see how ludicrous your position is?
I didn't point it out. I don't want to speak for the person who did, but I'll try to explain it.
You complain about the tax "rates" yet the president you voted for has extended them, so instead of bitching a few of the conservative on here about how you want taxes to increase, call your president. Or send your money to the treasury yourself. Do you want me to post the link again so you can donate your money to the government?
Also stop calling them the "Bush tax cuts" and start calling them the tax rates. After 3 presidential terms, they aren't cuts anymore they are tax rates.
OK then. From now on they are just the Unaffordable Tax Rates That Will Bankrupt Your Country, rather than the Bush tax cuts.
Or we can say the government is On a spending rampage, That Will Bankrupt Your Country, and start focusing on spending cuts.
How about doing what democrats have been doing, and focusing on BOTH spending cuts and increasing revenue to actually PAY DOWN the debt?
Spending rampage makes it sound like a sudden paroxysm of expenditures, but the federal government has been growing steadily since Reagan.
Moreover, where will these spending cuts come from? While the GOP sharpens hatchets for social welfare programs, they want to spend $3 billion refurbishing and redesigning the M-1A1/A2 despite the Pentagon's wishes. Meanwhile, there's no evidence that rampant cuts will actually do anything, in fact, if Europe offers an example of anything, it's that slash and burn cost cutting will only delay the recovery, making it more likely that the federal government will continue to run in the red.
We need smart cuts and smart expenditures, but there's no willingness to do so on the GOP side because they've all dialed into the cult of austerity when less than a decade ago they said "deficits don't matter."
As shocking as this may be, I agree with you... with 2 caveats.
1) Saying that you're planning to spend a smaller increase in spending than you were originally planning is not a spending cut (a favorite political tactic)
2) Can we stop demonizing people who are successful? Yes, I don't think it's a terrible thing if multi-millionaires pay a little more in taxes, but let's stop considering a family with a $250,000 income as the mega-rich.
I suppose that's what Obamacare is all about.
Show me the independent analysis of Obamacare that raises the debt, then we'll talk. As it stands, the answer to your question is YES.
1) If spending increases are planned based on expected growth, then a reduction in the spending increase is in fact a cut. No matter how you slice and dice it, government spending is a part of GDP, and any reduction in that spending, be it actual or planned, will reduce prospective GDP growth.
2) No one is demonizing the wealthy. All anyone asks is that those who benefitted the most in the last 30+ years (while we were amassing this massive debt) pay back some of what they got for the betterment of the society that gave them the advantages that led to their gains. That is fair.
You said spending cuts, not sure how that could be called anything less than massive spending. Even the CBO said it's going to cost nearly $2 Trillion just the first decade alone, and if I had to guess I'd say they are probably about $2 Trillion off.