What's new
By:

GOP and Tea BAggers to force government shutdown

Sirkickyass said:
All you need to know about both sides on the budget came during the showdown over extending the Bush tax-cuts for the top 2%. That came at a cost of roughly $360 billion over the next two years. It is impossible for me to take seriously any GOP candidate who claims to be a deficit hawk who also supported that extension because it came at nearly 10X the cost as the cuts they nearly shut the government down for.

Not allowing those cuts was also one of Obama's key campaign promises. And he caved. He had an opportunity before the elections to force a floor vote in the House in which the GOP would have to vote against a measure extending everyone's tax cut but the top 2%, crystallizing the real stakes to the GOP position, and refused to even make them put their votes where their mouths were. It was a huge tactical error politically and from a policy position and revealed him as a man without a real principled vision for the future of the country who is not willing to draw any lines in the sand. And what did the Dems get out of that deal? The extension of unemployment benefits. He's a person who actively encourages political hostage taking by caving in every single time.

Frankly, if this had been my negotiation the Planned Parenthood and NPR threats were so nakedly political and designed to be inessential that I would have billions off the table with the GOP as an insult-tax for thinking they could play those games. Not our Democratic party. They gave more away.

The reality is that Obama could emerge from the West Wing tomorrow advocating the repeal of all abortion rights, the abolition of the EPA, tax cuts for everyone, the elimination of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security and the vast majority of the GOP base still wouldn't like him. He's got to get over the idea that he can win them over and lead public opinion instead of follow it.

All that said, I would love to play poker with the man.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but who are you trying to explain this to? I think anyone with three and a half brain cells that has been following politics at all is aware that the potus will back down from a fight. It's really too bad, because I think there are enough of us out there that would really support him if he drew that line in the sand and demanded some of the things that we care about, and thought he cared about. Instead he is alienating the dems by caving to every demands and like you said repubs will hate him regardless of what he does. A small part of me is going to hold onto hope that the GOP field is really weak and Obama goes into big F U mode in his second term and starts fighting for things.
 
franklin said:
The tax structure is more likely to kill start-ups than the big corporations with lobbyists. I was going to point this out a few days ago, but I'm too lazy to get into any meaningful discussion about it.
Click to expand...

And right now what we really need are start-ups that employ people.
 
The Thriller said:
What was the average price for Insulin back then?

How much was the standard medicine to help control blood pressure and cholesterol?

What about more intensive procedures, such as hip and knee replacement?

I love it when people bring up irrelevant stats while forgetting the real issues that people face currently.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with SS? Everything your throwing against the wall is covered by Medicare. Another massive social program to be sure but unrelated to the topic I was discussing which is taking money from people and then paying it back to them once they retire.
 
Millsapa said:
introducing-charles.jpg
Click to expand...

That's what she said...


oh, wait, wut?
 
Archie Moses said:
My step-dad is screwed. He currently works as a contractor for the government at the Pentagon. Poor dude.
Click to expand...

How does he ever get by on his 2000% mark-up? I feel for the dude, I really do.
 
Marcus said:
And right now what we really need are start-ups that employ people.
Click to expand...

You're probably referring to this:

(KANSAS CITY, Mo.), March 7, 2011 – During the Great Recession, more Americans have become entrepreneurs than at any time in the past 15 years. However, while the economy and its high unemployment rates may have pressed more individuals into business ownership, most of them are going it alone, rather than starting companies that employ others.

According to the "Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity," a leading indicator of new business creation in the United States, 0.34 percent of American adults created a business per month in 2010, or 565,000 new businesses, a rate that remained consistent with 2009 and represents the highest level of entrepreneurship over the past decade and a half.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into this much but intuition says the internet has a lot to do with the single employer nature of start-ups. You can have economies of scale and compete with the likes of Walmart-Target, or your favorite duopoly, with a no employee enterprise. Employing others or not, I don't see how the highest entrepreneurial activity in 15 years is a long term drag (and that number is in real terms). To me, the high rate of sole proprietors is a sign of low capital start-ups (read: low risk), and many of the survivors will eventually grow. Despite problems that pale in comparison to the Great Depression, WWI and II, Korea, stagflation, and Warren Buffett-esque fear mongering over 1832 China, the future of America is great.
 
I'm not sure just how they define "entrepreneurial activity" - - tried looking it up but didn't find much...

so my guess is that the increase might also be in part due to some of the corporate downsizing and the rehiring of riffed employees as "independent contractors" - - I know several people that have been in that situation, and have started their own businesses to be rehired by their former employer
 
moevillini said:
I'm not sure just how they define "entrepreneurial activity" - - tried looking it up but didn't find much...

so my guess is that the increase might also be in part due to some of the corporate downsizing and the rehiring of riffed employees as "independent contractors" - - I know several people that have been in that situation, and have started their own businesses to be rehired by their former employer
Click to expand...

yep. All you need to be a "business" is one customer, say a contractor with an occasional odd job for you, the door-hanger, to do. You get maybe five "gigs" a month at $30 each. But you get to expense your commute to the site and back, and maybe the lunch at the nearby McD, and pro-rate the expense of your phone,computer, and den for the time you spend on the 'net "looking for work". Oh, and you "get" to buy your own health and life insurance. . . . oh, and you get to expense the driving at whatever the per-mile allowance is nowadays. . . . . and you flip burgers at McD too.

I'm not sure this is all positive. . . . .

But maybe a lot of folks are thorought fed up with Corporate Ameerica and government "help".

That could be a very good long-overdue development.
 
I don't think it's such a good thing that so many people are becoming entrepreneurs. I've been in business for myself for the last twelve years, and it's not as fluffy and fun as many people make it out to be. I think a lot of people go into business for themselves because it seems like the easier way to go (me, for example), only to find that it's a bitch of epic measure, and quit months/years later, often depleting any money or resources that they had. This rash of 'entrepreneurs' will very likely become next years welfare cases.
 
Marcus said:
Regarding the corporate tax thing. You specifically used GE.
Click to expand...

Actually GE was an exemplar of a specific instance. I posted a much larger report showing that, when compared to all OECD countries, the US had effectively the third lowest corporate tax rate.

GE's profits were all made using off shore divisions and fancy accounting. It's a shame that the US government doesn't realize that keeping a company in the US and only taxing them at 10% is a better return than taxing them at 35% and getting nothing because they set up shop in a different country. 10% of 9 billion is better than 0% which is what GE has paid to the US the last two years. Rather than several other countries getting a cut of taxes paid by GE the US should just lower their rates and get everything from GE.
Click to expand...

You clearly missed the point. 35% is NOT the actual American corporate tax rate. Rattling off a nominal tax rate like it means anything in terms of actual tax burdens is silly.

Furthermore the idea of the US getting the entire GE tax base is not a realistic possibility. There are more factors that go into this than pure tax rates including incentives (GE claimed large credits that are arguably socially productive), globalization, and differing banking rules. The solution is not always lower taxes and less regulation. Ask Iceland how that worked out for them.

The US needs to lower their corporate tax rate and then close all of the damn loopholes. GE is only doing what they are allowed to do under US tax law. It seems absolutely silly to me that the US would even have a 35% tax if nobody actually pays 35%.
Click to expand...

If the goal was only simplicity rather than a mix of priorities I would agree with you. But it's not, so I don't.

There's a reason a lot of countries are lowering their corporate taxes. It brings in large corporations. Japan, Ireland and Canada have all lowered, or are getting ready to lower, their corporate tax rates.
Click to expand...

All of which are still higher than US tax rates once you take into account deductions. Corporate taxation as a percentage of GDP in the United States is extremely low (which given the number of corporations in the US is actually astonishing because the number should be comparatively weighted upwards.) At some point you have to wrap your brain around the idea that it doesn't matter what the percentage on paper is if the amount paid is less. I can put on paper that my tax is 100%, but if everyone knows that you'll really pay 1% then all but the least sophisticated understand the rate is meaningless.

All you're doing is repeating talking points that are just as meaningless today as they were 15 years ago when they were formulated.

Look at it this way, if there are two stores selling the same product but one has it listed at 9.99 and the other at 19.99 but will give you the product for 9.99 if you fill out the paperwork, send it in and wait for a rebate why would you bother going to the second store at all?
Click to expand...

A lamer analogy than the "US budget as household budget" one. Here's the rub: these are taxes. You have to do the paperwork no matter what.

Why bother when I can open shop in Canada at 16.5% and cut out all the crap?
Click to expand...

Because you'll actually pay more in Canada? Oh wait, I forgot, your comprehension of the subject is surface level only.

Then again, I guess lawyers and accountants need jobs too.
Click to expand...

We'll do just fine regardless.
 
Agoxlea said:
What a generality. Here is ONE example that disproves your post.

Ezra Klein argues that cutting spending makes sense in a strong economy, but is harmful in a weak economy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2011-is-not-1995/2011/04/06/AFxPaT5C_blog.html
Click to expand...

LOL! He agreed that when the Republicans cut spending in 1995 it was the right thing to do only to make the point that it isn't right to cut spending right now during Obamanomics because it would hurt Obama's election chances. He also goes on to credit the "Obama administration economists" for those cuts. WTF?

You'll need to give me a time when liberals have proposed their own spending cuts.
 
franklin said:
I see you don't consider Bill Clinton a liberal.
Click to expand...

Fine.

There is no time in which liberals think budget cutting is appropriate....unless the Republicans take over congress after 40 years of Dem control and shut down the government unless you go with their budget cuts.
 
Millsapa said:
LOL! He agreed that when the Republicans cut spending in 1995 it was the right thing to do only to make the point that it isn't right to cut spending right now during Obamanomics because it would hurt Obama's election chances. He also goes on to credit the "Obama administration economists" for those cuts. WTF?

You'll need to give me a time when liberals have proposed their own spending cuts.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who made the cuts, that is a liberal that approved of a budget cut at one time. I hope "There is no time in which liberals think budget cutting is appropriate." was not intended to be a factual statement.
 
I find it funny to watch the news and see the clips of everybody in the government tripping over themselves talking about cutting the budget. Good hell, wasn't it just last year that they were spending money like it was going out of style? (Disclaimer: I'm talking about both sides of the aisle here.) Why the sudden change of heart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top